Current Events: Even Fanfic Must Beware

One of the really nice features of Archive of Our Own is the tags. You can check at the beginning of the story for characters, is there sex (or not), and a bunch of other things so you stand a chance of avoiding things you really, really don’t want in the middle of your light entertainment.

Well. Even if you’re writing fanfic, apparently cancel culture is gunning for you next… no, really. They’re after trigger warnings.

Because it implies violence.

The stupid, it burns.

Thing is, from people I’ve talked to or read online who’ve survived traumatic experiences, “trigger warning” suits them just fine. Because things that set off your phobia/flashbacks/whatever act like a trigger. Something often totally beyond your conscious control, that can leave you rattled and sick for the rest of the day. When you have limited coping resources due to the stress of dealing with life on top of trauma, a brief note of “hey, here’s something that might give you horrible reminders, might skip” is very much appreciated. It helps.

These self-anointed custodians of language say we should avoid words like victim and survivor, because it might “make a person feel reduced to an experience.”  Yet people who’ve survived trauma prefer to be called survivors.

They want us to use “person-first language”. Yet people on the autism spectrum usually prefer to be called autistics.

They want us to avoid “language that doesn’t say what we mean”. Welp, there goes all of poetry, song, wide swathes of literature, because metaphors and similes are Right Out.

These. People. Are. Insane.

And part of that insanity is inconsistency and double standards, because for people who claim they’re all about people’s “lived experience”, they completely deny the experiences of anyone who doesn’t agree with them down to the last… punctuation mark.

I know, I’d like to ignore these people like the idiots they are too. The problem is, Brandeis University isn’t alone, and they and places like Michigan State train journalists, among others, who then consider it their bounden duty to hold all of us to their standards of behavior.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to be dragged down to such standards.

PARC recognizes that language is a powerful tool used to perpetrate and perpetuate oppression.” Yes. Yes it is. And the answer to that is not neutering speech, but more of it.

There’s a reason English has plundered vocabulary and ideas from every culture on the face of the planet. We want ideas. We want to hash them out. We want to discuss what’s good, what’s bad, what’s true, what’s evil, and what’s just ugly.

If you hem in what people can say and think, you are the oppressor.

Free speech. For everyone. Forever.

It’s the only way to be sure.


99 thoughts on “Current Events: Even Fanfic Must Beware

    1. I’m in at least one of the allegedly protected categories, and am not in most others.

      Guess how much I’ve been consulted on whether I grant authority to some activist psychopath to speak on my behalf. (Yeah, I know you can pretty strongly infer the answer. And have some experience with ‘scholarly authorities’ credentialed in women’s studies purporting to speak on your behalf.)

      Liked by 7 people

  1. Yeah, I’m enthusiastically salty in my concurrence.

    Though, insane people can be treated, or at least in theory warehoused where they cannot cause harm to others. As a practical matter, these folks may be in a different category where other remedies are more appropriate.

    I’m tempted to update ‘First they came for…’, but some of the wording coming to might is a bit beyond the behavior I try to follow here.

    There are folks who would be skeptical of whether my conduct here is an attempt to behave politely and with courtesy to those of wildly differing philosophical opinions. 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Yup.

        But you can’t choose to be ill, even if you can choose mighty poor strategies for coping with the illness. (Or at least, you can’t choose the mental illnesses that aren’t caused by drug abuse.)

        You can choose to pursue wokeness.

        I’m definitely not to the point at saying that the ill people ought to be killed. We have more margin than that.

        I’m metaphorically ‘running the numbers’ on the other category.

        and previous comment should read ‘wording coming to mind is a bit beyond’. Apparently I am not overburdened with spoons.

        Liked by 3 people

      1. Is appreciated.

        And I definitely agree with the sentiment – by that logic every “detective chasing serial killer” book must be written by a would-be psychopath. Which, come on. Most psychopaths I’ve met don’t have the patience to write books….

        Liked by 5 people

  2. Read the article, I do think that the word lame should be discourage to be used as a negative expression and that useless it’s a tiny age difference you don’t have sex with a underage person you are raping them but trigger warnings is a necessary thing

    Liked by 1 person

    1. *laughs*
      Note, not an attack, I know that it can be hard to read tone in text.

      But I was giggling IRL and wanted to share, in case it might make you smile, too.

      My mom is lame. She’s cool, but she’s had trouble walking for decades, now. Her dad did, too. And she TOTALLY stole his rant from when some early cry-bullies tried to “help” him by scolding someone who said “hey, Pat’s lame, he can’t walk that far.”

      I can’t remember WHAT word they wanted someone to use, but it was before the “differently abled” thing.

      He didn’t curse, but the basic boil down was “my leg DOESN’T WORK. How does a new word to describe that help anything?”

      And then went off on a long list of ways to describe “leg doesn’t work,” including “halt” and “gimp” and…
      It was epic.

      Liked by 5 people

  3. That was an interesting article. Most of the recommendations were utter woke nonsense, of course.

    The part that amused me was that some if it went so far around the bend that it arrived back at sanity and turned into a genuine rectification of names.

    I’m sure there’s some pithy saying about people who go far out of their way to change things only to end up at the principles they sought to abandon, but I can’t bring it to mind.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. This is stupid beyond words- that article triggers for me the ‘too dumb to live’ trope so strongly…
    and also reminds me of that book called ‘1984’ .

    they are so close to “newspeak”, that soon it would only be technicalities separating English from that fictional language.

    Liked by 5 people

  5. The world is made of stupid. And I’ve been wondering lately where it ends. Because at this rate, what _isn’t_ going to be considered unacceptable? The way woke is coming for basic language, before long we’re pretty much not going to be able to say anything at all.

    Which may be the objective, I suppose. Speech is just as dangerous as guns. Maybe more. I dare say more people have died as a result of Karl Marx’s words than any individual weapon type. (Note: not endorsing Karl Marx, he’s just the first example to come to mind of the widespread power of words.) For those who would oppress, the First Amendment is as much an obstacle as the Second.

    Just look at the recent nonsense from the IRS, denying a church tax-exempt status on the grounds that “Biblical teachings often align with the GOP, and thus are political”. Sorry, folks, that is _not_ how it works. (If nothing else, the Bible came first!)

    And even if this is genuinely a misguided attempt at protecting people–which I don’t think it is, but hey, even the devil has his advocate–it’s still stupid. In the words of L. Neil Smith, a man I consider an anarchist kook but nonetheless has some nice turns of phrase, “You cannot childproof the world. The best you can do is world-proof your children.”

    …He also coined the term “victim disarmament” to describe gun-grabbers, which I think fits the current situation pretty well, too.

    Liked by 3 people

      1. Well, I was trying to give just a _little_ bit of a benefit of the doubt. Just to be polite. I know, they wouldn’t return the courtesy, but one still has to try.

        Liked by 2 people

    1. And I’ve been wondering lately where it ends.
      1. We win, they lose.
      2. The whole pattern of recent politics is suggestive that they are really a small and weak minority.
      3. The fraudulent appearance of power will collapse, and the silent majority/VRWC/moderate American public will force them to behave, or else.
      4. It looks impressive now. But keep speaking truth, even if only in places you think no one will see. Lies are hard to do, and truth always wins. Continue playing your hand in the game, trusting in The Lord, and maybe in some of the fairly strong inferences we can make about what is going on.
      5. The thing is, it is the left’s conceit that they have to understand the theory of whatever it is that they are trying to do. We do not actually have to have a theoretical understanding before we can possibly do anything. Theory is useful for understanding things that happen in the past, and for this specific area it is not correct to forecast strictly from past events. I’ve spent a long time trying to find a theoretical solution first, when a fix can be implemented that I may only figure out afterwards. We have a lot of people who are concerned, and they are all close to different aspects of the issues. Hundreds of people working on their own answers to the bits closest to them could accidentally find the pieces to a comprehensive solution that none of them could have designed and implemented from comprehensive theory.
      6. It is said of the American militaries that they prepare extensive doctrine, plans, etc., and then ignore it when on the battlefield. And somehow win anyway.

      A lot of interested parties have spent much time on boog theory. It could be that the ‘ignoring doctrine’ saying will be true also for the Second American Civil War.

      Liked by 4 people

  6. What annoys me is how often the language is used in place of actual education.

    When I was growing up, people shifted through several terms, “Crippled” to “Disabled” to “Physically Challenged.”

    Every time it was presented as a form of rudeness.
    “We don’t say that anymore.”

    And whatever attitudes/assumptions were associated with the previous term were easy transitioned over to the next.
    Often accompanied by increasing sarcasm and derision.
    Frankly I would say it didn’t actually improve anything, just drew more attention to the group in a negative way.

    Then one day I saw an episode of CSI.
    It was about a Little People’s Convention, and showed many of the tools and tricks they used to do what they want.
    I thought, “That’s neat, they can come up with something to overcome any problem, no mater how challenging-” and that’s when it clicked.
    They weren’t “disabled” they were “challenged” because they could still do things, it was just a question of what challenges they’d need to overcome.

    It wasn’t an shocking revelation, but it was a critical one… and one that nobody had ever bothered to explain.

    It feels like some person imagines one specific way a phrase can be taken the wrong way, and rather than try to change attitudes or explain the problem, they just slap on a new word and demand people follow it.

    It’s simultaneously an overreaction and half-assed.

    Liked by 4 people

  7. As Sarah Hoyt has said, if it weren’t for double standards, they wouldn’t have any. So it’s impossible to rouse any sense of guilt in them. (Shame, yes, because in a commissar culture shame can be death.)

    There’s also the self-killing involved in serving the woke. Notice how ‘victims’ are cast aside as soon as they disagree with the narrative? To serve the woke, judgment has to be so suppressed that NPC scripting is inevitable. And while there’s definitely a victimarchy in commissar culture, there’s a woke-archy that uses the victimarchy as sword and shield.

    I call them the lowerarchy, because if it turns out that their masters knowingly take orders from the Pit, I’ll be utterly unsurprised. People who so consistently want to normalize kiddie-naughties can’t be _that_ ignorant of what they serve.


    Liked by 4 people

  8. I only skimmed the other comments, so I apologize if this was already mentioned, but I’m getting some very Orwellian vibes from this topic. It’s interesting… like the old Chinese curse and the reality of 2020 were “interesting”. lol

    Liked by 4 people

    1. By about two months into 2021, I had the feeling the year had told 2020 to hold its beer. Six months in, I wish 2021 would just go all the way and drink itself into a coma. Maybe then we’d all get some rest from the crazy.

      Liked by 4 people

      1. You’re not the only one. I’ve heard several places, “2021 is 2020 but old enough to drink.”

        The unrelenting crazy is exhausting, but if you step back and take a look at it from the perspective of someone who deals with Cluster B behaviors?

        This is the extinction burst.

        When you start getting out of an abusive situation, the abusers escalate, because they know they’re losing control. Their reasoning is that if they can make things bad enough you’ll give in and go back to the relationship standards that make things happy.

        The thing we have to do is hold on and not give an inch.

        And be prepared for violence, because leaving is the most dangerous time.

        Liked by 4 people

  9. This seems like making a mountain out of a molehill. One University group based around helping students who have been “impacted by violence” has a list of words and phrases that may be reminiscent of violence or upsetting to someone.

    Yes, some of that list is stupid or counter-productive or just awkward and unlikely to be followed. Who is going to care about whether it is a “trigger warning”, a “content warning” or whatever other variation? Person-first language is wildly unpopular among people with disabilities. No one is confused by “she’s escaped an abusive relationship”.

    But how are these people the “woke language police”?

    They even start the list with a careful explanation that these are just suggestions, not any sort of requirement and you can choose to say whatever you want. Some of them are helpful if you are trying to be more sensitive about certain issues and none of them are going to hurt.

    I don’t think this group has anything to do with journalists or any real sort of power over what people say.


    1. Suggestions, you say. Ah, how quickly people forget.

      1990s: “All gay people want is the recognition of our legal partnerships!”

      2010s: “If you don’t create and bake the cake we want for our gay wedding, we’ll use the courts to drive you out of business!”

      Suggestions my foot.

      Liked by 4 people

      1. Possibly was born yesterday, and unaware of events even as recent as last year.

        Possibly was born yesterday, and thinks that they can pull off coming here and blatantly lying directly to us.

        Possibly I am not enough considering the charitable possibilities.

        Liked by 3 people

      2. “Suggestions my foot”, indeed. For my entire life, I’ve watched as a group made demands “my side”–for want of a better way to put it–thought were ridiculous. But compromises would be made, on the promise that it would go that far, no farther.

        It never works that way. People like that see a compromise as a concession, and a sign of weakness. It has happened again, and again, and again, and they will not stop until they have _everything_ they want–and they _will_ destroy everyone who dares to question them.

        Liked by 4 people

      3. Exactly. The thing is that Cluster B types approach every day as if you should treat it as a blank slate – it shouldn’t matter what they got yesterday, all that matters is what they want today.

        Of course, their own grudges, they remember forever, and you can never do enough to make them let go. Ever.

        “The only way to win is not to play.”

        Liked by 3 people

      4. Interesting. That sounds like a perfect description of several prominent figures I could name; the one that comes most readily to mind is Herr Doktor Fauci, who seems not to realize his previous claims are on public record, and thus people can tell his “advice” changes based on what’s most useful to his narrative that day, not according to data genuinely changing with some use of the scientific method (at least, not any use of the scientific method _I_ recognize).

        Liked by 3 people

    2. Who is going to care about whether it is a “trigger warning”, a “content warning” or whatever other variation?

      By that logic, they are wrong to try to change it.

      The entire point is to make demands of others, and make them do what you (demander) does, rather than as they would judge best. It is imposing prudential judgment on others, and worse it’s on behalf of a third party, EVEN IF THEY DON’T WANT THE ‘HELP’ AND DISAGREE.

      This is a well-worn tactic that goes back at least to the 50s in the US, where people are “asked” to do things that “aren’t important,” with the implication that it’s just polite. Not taking the desired action is framed as an active offense, not a refusal to take a demanded action.

      This is in spite of the fact that manners would hold that one does not make such requests of people unless it is a very important situation, and you never presume to act on behalf of another over their objections.

      Some of them are helpful if you are trying to be more sensitive about certain issues and none of them are going to hurt.


      That’s a REALLY big assumption. NONE of those will hurt?
      Damaging language, and abusing charity, will not cause harm? Hijacking the moral authority of others to scold others doesn’t do any harm? As a woman who has been lectured by progressive white dudes about how my poor little lady-brain is clearly defective because I am to the right of Stalin, I beg to differ.

      Liked by 5 people

      1. On the whole “none of them are going to hurt” – I sincerely advise anyone who thinks that to look up what Autism Speaks advocates (completely eliminating autism) and look up actual autistics like John Elder Robinson who tried to work with them and point out what autistic people actually need.

        (Which includes, among other things, help with learning the manners of work, getting medical help to treat allergies and auto-immune, and working out coping strategies to deal with sensory overload.)

        They drove him out of the organization. They don’t want to help autistics. They want them to be perfectly normal… or cease to exist.

        Liked by 5 people

    3. Hahahahaha.

      Claiming that only a single university is the issue is evidence that either one has been ignoring events at their local R1/R2 school, or that one is dishonest.

      Universities in nominally conservative states have been expelling students, with the state appointed board of regents merrily letting the university leadership continue to pull this crap, and cover up sexual abuse allegations by the people who brought those ‘leaders’ in to the university. Woke is clearly being used to threaten people’s positions, and as a figleaf to conceal running the place as a corrupt fiefdom.

      A great deal of harm has been done to the reputation of universities for certifying ‘experts’ that can be trusted by the public to act as agents in certain specialized areas.

      Critical Race Theory is only the most blatantly obvious example. CRT purports to say that a) white people are not legitimate voices on issues that are specifically problems for blacks, and that b) CRT scholars are legitimate agents for the interests of blacks in these matters. We can show with critical analysis, with Critical CRT Theory, that the second is definitely not true. CRT scholars in academia led the cheerleading for BLM’s arsons. (And those were definitely BLM’s arsons, or if done by white supremacists the white supremacists were invited and shepherded by the same people inviting and shepherding antifa and BLM.) Now, some CRT scholars are trying to say that burning poor black neighborhoods was a good thing, but it they really thought it was a good thing, they would also be encouraging BLM to burn down wealthy universities in general and the offices of African-American Studies faculty in particular. Ergo, CRT scholars paid as faculty by wealthy universities may be serving as agents of someone, but it is certainly not as agents of poor blacks. (It is also not as agents of actual professional blacks, who have real jobs.) And the universities would shut down scholars who openly state that universities should be burned down, while being fine with those poor black neighborhoods being burned down.

      Education is also an example, but clearly demonstrating it to an audience who will not believe is a bit more tedious.

      Medical schools are profoundly messed up. They are certified by the AMA, which has outright said that they do not think that doctors have professional obligations worth adhering to wrt whites. Ergo, whites now have a reasonable expectation that medical credentialing authorities may collude to defraud them of service. This is before the issues with covid policy are discussed. The medical professional schools need to be divorced from the AMA, and from institutions where ‘research’ in the humanities is conducted. Maybe also from institutions where research in the social sciences is conducted.

      Law faculty have likewise screwed over the legal profession rather badly. Long and short of it, a number of law school heads signed a letter that makes it look like they would collude to deny clients fair representation. Fundamentally, this undermines the moral authority of lawyers and of the formal legal system, thereby making legal degrees and admission to bars have less potential earning power for lawyers. Again, this is a case where the legal professional schools need to be divorced from the ABA and the universities with programs in other majors.

      Now, you might think that I have nothing to say about the engineering schools, simply because the profile of the issues cannot match what I have already stated. There are more engineering professional organizations, with less concentrated power, and so it is a little harder to get really dumb-ass statements or changes in official policy (such as regarding professional ethics) by simply packing a single committee. And some of the stuff being pushed sounds fairly reasonable when you first hear it. But, the engineering faculty are not stopping insane university leadership from endorsing harmful statements like ‘mathematics is not for blacks’. And those universities that have been as much as endorsing the CRT scholars in saying ‘mathematics is not for blacks’ have made their engineering degrees less valuable. If you are a white engineering alumni, you are tarred a little with racism by association, and if you are now managing other engineers, you are a legal liability in any litigation involving blacks. If you are white, and getting a graduate degree, you have a choice between risking expulsion, or endorsing ‘mathematics are not for blacks’, and thus hurting any management/leadership ambitions you may have, because that endorsement is a statement of doubt as to whether hiring a black with an engineering degree means hiring someone who can do the work. Likewise if you are Chinese, Indian, etc. Like a lot of the international students in engineering, who lack the background in American culture to understand the legal implications of loudly applauding when the university leadership are not engineering faculty, and hence do not know when the official position of the university should be shutting up and kicking the can down the road. If you are black, have an engineering, physics or mathematics degree, or are considering studying engineering, physics, or mathematics, it hurts you in several ways. One, even if you have really learned the material, and fully earned the degree, some of your perspective employers will think that your faculty went easy on you because of the woke push. Two, this stuff is hard to learn, and everyone makes a bunch of mistakes while trying to learn it, so if faculty are coerced into taking it easy on you, they are not helping you. Three, if the university is saying that you can’t learn it, or would have a harder time learning it, you may make the mistake of trusting the university. And the engineering faculty can be trustworthy and worth learning from, even when the senior university leadership is pushing their own heads deeper into their own colons. As a result, the professional engineering schools need to be separated from the universities that teach other majors. Which will obviously be disruptive to the careers of current engineering faculty. This woke push is bad for engineering alumni, students, and faculty. Now, some of the faculty probably deserve some of the consequences, but there are good engineering faculty who definitely do not deserve what is coming.

      Liked by 4 people

      1. tl;dr, there is definitely harm because of the woke push at universities; a bachelor’s can finish before the issues become obvious, but with what is happening to the value of degrees, probably most of the graduate students now are crazy, desperate or stupid.

        Liked by 3 people

      2. Also, math is a topic where if you get badly instructed one year, you eventually hit a point where you can’t get any further before you go back to that point and rebuild your foundation with good instruction.

        /Everyone/ needs someone who will take the time to tell you “this is wrong, fix it”, and help you work through it.

        I have some problems with my own mathematical training, because I’ve self studied, don’t always push myself all the way to correct understanding, and am terrible about asking for help.

        ‘Mathematics is not for blacks’ is something that people say when they want to excuse not teaching blacks properly.

        Ten, twenty, or thirty years ago, engineering, physics and mathematics faculty were not racist against blacks and trying to exclude them from the profession/s. The engineering, mathematics and physics people are not the people saying ‘mathematics is not for blacks’, they know very well that it is not true. The people saying this are largely humanities majors, education majors, and administrators. Humanities majors are by and large people who do not care deeply about math, and could care less about how well trained black engineer, mathematics, and physics majors are in mathematics. ‘Math is white supremacist’ is not something an uncredentialed person would be able to justify saying, so it is something that you can say and count coup on the people who do not have degrees and are not ‘scholars’. The education majors can say it, because it denies their culpability for the quality of mathematical training provided to black in primary and secondary school. And the administrators are held to account by the public for ‘discrimination against blacks’ based off of statistical models that the public does not understand. If the administrators tell the humanities majors and the education majors to choke on it, they get in trouble for not having enough black graduates and not doing ‘everything’ to ‘fix’ it. If the administrators ‘try to fix it’ while making it worse, that actually works well for them, because the people supervising them are not able to supervise them in a way that could actually force them to do the job competently.

        Liked by 3 people

  10. Does anyone remember when folks where going after tags and trigger warnings cause they said the impuned on free speech and/or where “spoilers” ? I remember that argument being so much simpler. Even if it’s still had. Good times.

    I really wish some folks would understand that even if one person in the community thinks a way the whole community doesn’t. Like do I believe there are survivors who don’t wanna be called survivors? Sure. That’s just numbers. And if I meett that person and they object ill apologize and try and make a note of it re:them for future. That’s just polite. But most survivors I know, and speaking from personal experience see “survivor” as a badge of honor. It’s saying “Evil walked into my life and I lived so screw that rat.”
    And are there people who hate trigger warnings/tags and actually find them triggering? Well sure. Ill believe that. But most folks find them useful and helpful. To keep themselves safe and frankly as a navigation tool.
    And well we live in a society. You gotta try for the most good for the most people.
    In group we also have this thing “Police your own triggers” if you know something is gonna set you off its your job to get away from it if you can. I’m not gonna sit down and watch Law and Order: SVU and then blame the makers of the show when it messes me up. I knew what I was sitting down to. If you’re an alcoholic you don’t go to the bar. You also don’t blame the bar for existing.
    If tags and trigger warnings on AO3 mess you up the its your job to use something different. And if it doesn’t mess you up then maybe keep your nose out of other folks business? Or at least check the vibe of the room first.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. That alcoholic and the Bar example is one of the best ones I have seen to describe the situation! That is the point exactly. I once saw a comedian do an amazing bit about offending people. He said in it that being Offended is subjective, it has to do with a wide variety of different situations and influences, from how you grew up to your personal beliefs, what country you live in and so on. And because of that, it makes no sense at all to make laws or rules about offending people, because everyone has different ideas about what is triggering or offensive. It’s practically impossible to get a simple majority to agree on what is offensive! Sorry about the long rant, this has been really bothering me lately and I really like your examples and how you described how people should be looking at the situation.


  11. What pisses me off about that university’s list is that there are at minimum two flat out whole cloth LIES that are used to excuse the actions (I only skimmed the dumbass list, I’ll admit, and stopped when I hit Rule of Thumb)

    Picnic – which they say TOTALLY started in the south with people going to watch lynchings… and not the 1600s French ‘pique-nique (or pick trifles) and common practice even BEFORE it picked up the name
    rule of thumb – which TOTALLY was about how ebil men could legally choose sticks only as wide as a thumb to beat the pure wymxns… and not ‘general/rough measurement’

    Something I’ve been saying for years

    If you have to lie to make a point

    Liked by 2 people

    1. If you have to lie to make a point

      I will half-back on that, in as much as:
      if YOU think the facts don’t support what you want me to think, why the ever loving eff should I change my view to what you think?

      Amusing family story, based on my grandfather being pissed off about energy efficient stuff being sold because “climate change” not hey dummy costs less to run.

      Mostly because of some false-flag attempts to invoke the fallacy of “someone supported it with a lie thus the point is false,” which in logic is “does not support” not “false.”

      Liked by 2 people

      1. *nods* I can totally see what you mean.
        I tend to use the expression more in a ‘if the only way to support your point/if everything supporting your point is a lie.. then if nothing else you need to reaccess the point’

        but that isn’t as punchy, and I was quite annoyed at how heavily he University was lying to make their point and overstated in part for humor, in part for annoyance, and in part because I’m tired of whole cloth lies being used to excuse/create points :/

        Which I likely should have explained, resulting in my being unclear ^^;; My apologies about that, I really must work on communicating with more clarity

        but yeah the ‘this one point of support was a lie’ being used to take down an otherwise valid point is something I’ve seen happen too, and I can see how that could be an issue

        (Also my family has done the ‘why can’t you just say it costs less to run/saves in long term’ as well XD)

        Liked by 3 people

      2. That’s one thing that convinces a lot of conservatives that environmental activists aren’t as concerned about the environment as they are about using it as an excuse to wipe out free markets. “Guys, guys, does it ever occur to you that corporations would love to use less resources to make their products? It saves them money!”

        Liked by 2 people

      3. Not helped by the way that ‘what it takes to MAKE those ‘green’ pieces of tech is often ignored… the damage they can do/limitations of them… and how sometimes I swear a lot of people don’t understand how their ‘green’ tech works, or why NO you really CAN’T lay a bullet train line down there, or so many other things

        Also for the love of GOD can we please use nuclear power? Molten Salt reactors, thorium, and SO MUCH MORE.. it’s safe and it’s power dense and so much more. (Also we’ve got fast reactors to burn waste, there’s talk about turning waste into crystal battieres which… that just sound so sci fi and awesome though I’ve been too busy RL to research it like I have fast reactors and molten salt and the like)

        (Sorry, weird mood today, I shall be quiet and stop oversharing/tangenting ^^;;)

        >Bah, if you’d put the less punchy version in it’d hit the TLDR filter, AND I wouldn’t have gotten a chance to expand!
        >And me not talking is terrible. >.>

        Well, I’m glad I used the punchy version then, as I quite enjoyed your expansion! ^_^

        Liked by 2 people

      4. Not to mention things like, “We need rare earths to make these energy-saving devices. But we won’t let you dig for them in the U.S. because it’s damaging the environment.” Well, which is it, people?


      5. Yuuuuuuuuuup.
        It’s whatever fits for the point they’re trying to make. There are many times where it feels like REALITY doesn’t factor in. :/

        …Also urban blindness, as I tend to call it. Everything is from a ‘urban’ point of view/mentality. Everything is about life in urban centers and making THAT better/what works in urban centers.
        If it doesn’t work/apply in rural (or even suburban) zones… well, who cares? Urban centers are where half the population is… who cares about things like…

        Tis annoying.
        And often the urban centers are big enough in pop to be ABLE to override/overrule everyone else… like little lords in a fiefdom.
        …can we introduce electoral college on a STATE level? The cities seriously have too much power and not enough care (and sometimes no care at all) about the support network that allows the city to function.

        Liked by 1 person


        Check the maps. Yes, the cities are acting exactly like overlords who don’t care about the rest of the population.

        Prior to the 17th Amendment, senators were elected by state legislatures instead of direct election. This meant that they usually reflected the overall state, instead of the areas of highest population in the state (the cities). A lot of conservatives think things started going downhill from there.

        Liked by 2 people

      7. *nods* I know I’m one of them. Much of my family too.
        I don’t want the cities to ahve NO power/no voice. good Lord, no.

        But as things currently stands… only the cities have voice/power. To the point wehre people purposefully move into/push for people to move into cities to flip entire states… becasue ONE (or sometimes 2 or 3) cities have enough population to talk over everyone else. (Dallas, Atlanta, and so on)

        It’s basically ‘we need you pure intelligent city people to come to this horrible state that refuses to fall in line! you can live in this CIVILIZED city and we’ll bring those dumb dirty blue collars/rurals to heel!

        And sometimes the people that think that way mean well/are good people
        My Mom is the sweetest and kindest person I know…
        she also grew up in NYC, and every time we drive by/through anything REMOTELY rural she starts making nasty remarks about the people there, about the ‘state of things’, about how poor and uneducated it is, and so on
        I confronted her about it, we sat down and had a few (very calm and reasoned) discussions, and she came to realize how prejudiced she was being and is trying to correct it, aiming to treat them like I do urban centers
        Most of the people are neutral, a lot are good, tehre are some bad apples (who are very loud) but there are things that are important there and those who chose the lifestyle are not LESSER in any way for it.

        …I went of on a tangent again ^^;;

        Liked by 2 people

      8. There may be hope yet. There’s at least one smaller town trying to break off from Atlanta so they can police their own streets – they’ve had it with the crime permitted by Atlanta’s mayor.


      9. I’ve seen mention of that, gives me hope
        Also seen several counties in the nor-west talking about joining… Idaho I think it was?
        And more than one person trying to push for Cali to be split east and west

        But a lot of those would only hold until the ‘NO, QUICK MY FELLOW LORDS! WE MUST MOVE HERE TO CONTROL THE PEASENTS’ occurs again.
        I just want people to have an equal say… and right now we don’t have that, only the cities ahve say and it’s gonna cause a HELL of a lot of issues down teh road (issues the founding fathers tried to prevent)

        Liked by 1 person

      10. I made a scifi in-progress series, where they’re 2k years from now (because it’s funny), where main character is from New Jefferson.

        Because Jefferson the state should happen, first. ^.^.

        Liked by 1 person

      11. I am still mildly rage-button about Jimmy banning the recycling nukes, because they could be used to make weapons. (like nuke waste dirty bombs aren’t scary)

        Finding out that the One Big Downside of nuclear power, that you need to bury the waste forever, is artificial?


        Liked by 1 person

      12. Yeah, there is so much PURPOSEFUL misinformation and scare tactics about Nuclear power it isn’t even funny, it’s rage inducing.

        Liked by 2 people

      13. ^_^
        Well, I’m glad I used the punchy version then, as I quite enjoyed your expansion! ^_^

        (I accidently put my reply to this in another comment, sorry about that!! ^^;;

        Liked by 1 person

      14. Bah, if you’d put the less punchy version in it’d hit the TLDR filter, AND I wouldn’t have gotten a chance to expand!

        And me not talking is terrible. >.>

        Liked by 2 people

      15. Just to address a kind of side note, in my relativly uneducated opinion: it usually does not cost less for the “climate saving” stuff. Electric cars being a perfect example. You still have to pay for the additional electricity to charge the car, they still havent figured out how to safely dispose of the main lithium batteries, it costs a lot more to fix them than older, less climate friendly cars, etc. Another example is California’s rolling blackouts due to being unable to keep up with the power consumption with their more “climate friendly” power sources. They literally can’t produce enough electricity to keep up with the population using their less harmful utilities like wind turbines and Solar Panels. I have also encountered this same phenomenon with healthy foods. Raw vegetables, fresh fruit, etc (not the ones labeled “organic” I discovered recently that all a company had to do to get an organic label on produce is to pay for it) usually cost a lot more to buy than the unhealthy food. Same with healthier meats such as ground Turkey, lower fat beef, fish etc. It costs significantly more to eat healthier foods than most processed foods. I’m not saying that there isn’t some benefits to non-coal or non Nuclear power, or driving electric cars. But the reason I think the people pushing them don’t use the whole “It will save you money in the long run” is because they know it is glaringly obvious that it wont, at least not right now, or for the near future with how technology and everything the way it is. Especially for the lower class and poor class people, who can’t afford to buy those electric cars, let alone pay to charge them every night, yet will soon be unable to use any other forms of transportation by law in certain states.

        I also want to make it clear that I am not saying that trying different energy sources or helping produce less pollution is not worth paying more, just like with eating healthier food, I just do not agree that those alternatives cost less, let alone significantly reduce the impact on the environment. Unfortunately, I do not have any solutions either…

        Sorry about the long comment, I had a… discussion with a good friend about this today that bordered on getting very heated and I’m still a little on edge. It was the first time we have really disagreed on something, and I was trying really hard to listen to their side of it but anyway…. this is just my opinion, feel free to ignore it. 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

      16. Ah, but none of those things are actually about saving the environment– contrast with windows that have higher insulation value, or fridges that do more on less power, or even vehicles where our “gas guzzler” towing vehicle has a lower end MPG that beats the top-end MPG for the car I drove in high school. (Assuming the vehicle does what you need it to do, doing it on less fuel is nice in the pocket book.)

        Thus, specifically pointed at the energy efficient stuff. 😀

        Your argument hangs valid to my not-yet-caffeinated eyes, though.

        Liked by 2 people

      17. With certain areas of educational training, you really can ask ‘but is it /really/ healthier?’ and ‘but is it /really/ better for the environment?’, and make those arguments really well supported.

        Fundamentally, with energy efficiency, for complete understanding you want calculus based thermodynamics. (Okay, transmission line theory from electrical engineering, etc, and a bunch of stuff from chemistry are also useful.) One of the most first principles to look at for this is ‘conservation of energy’, and with it you can show using basic arithmetic that solar doesn’t scale in any environmentally friendly way. If you use only solar, you need so much land, that you must lose a lot of ground cover, which would tend to lead to dust storms.

        Anther thing people talk about is improving efficiency of the conventional practical power supplies. Such as heat engines like steam power plants, or internal combustion engines. These can have reasonably small land use, and a reasonably profitable. The issue is that efficiency is really hard to improve in heat engines after you have heat engine technology reasonably mature. The basic concept in thermodynamics is ‘Carnot efficiency’. Really appreciating this difficulty tends to require both a good understanding of thermodynamics, and of the properties of high temperature materials.

        Another thing comes from the economic side of engineering. Most of economic theory is unsound, but one of the few useful bits tells us that the money spent on a product is somewhat related to the resources spent. So when you look at tax subsidies etc, to compare the full price of green energy to the full price of conventional, it looks like green energy is the energy alternative that is worse for the environment, and has no redeeming value.

        To realize the goals sought as ‘environmental improvement’, you would need to kill off a bunch of people, or have some way to keep most of the world in grinding poverty, on the very edge of starvation. The PRC, which /is/ keeping the Chinese in grinding poverty, does not have the power to deliver on “Yeah, we’ve promised the Gwai Lo to reduce emissions, so sucks even more to be you.” Yeah, sure, the likes of Thiemo may try to tell us that Germany, a richer and more technologically advanced country, can pull it off. The German government has convinced the Germans to accept much privation, and are successfully destroying a lot of resources with their Green energy efforts. The Germans are not processing all of their raw materials in Germany, so the energy costs of the processing can be offloaded to countries that are still using conventional energy. No set of regimes can deliver on enforcing the hardship on all human populations. So that leaves us with giving up by setting reasonable goals, or mass murder. Mass murder is really hard. Thus, we can conclude that the goal is unreasonable.

        It is not at all clear that the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) models are correct once you ask yourself if they were done well enough to justify mass murder. Climate science methods come out of meteorology. The methods meteorology uses to predict temperature, fluid speed, etc, are not the same as what mechanical engineering uses to predict temperature, fluid speed, etc. Mechanical engineering uses these prediction methods to make designs, and these designs include ones that make good trade offs where human lives or welfare is at stake. Mechanical engineering methods cannot be applied to weather forecasting. In weather forecasting, you cannot eliminate enough of the unknowns and uncertainties to make mechanical engineering models produce anything but what mechanical engineers would see as garbage. Climate modeling is even worse than meteorology, from a mechanical engineering perspective. In weather, you can in principle use smaller scale experimental models to capture all of the fluid behavior, in order to check the analytical and numerical models of the fluid. For climate, there is an important aspect that is basically impossible to experimentally. At climate scale, the radial gravity force on the fluid in question might be important. If addressing climate change had no costs, it would not need any special care in showing that it is necessary. The greater the costs, the greater the care required to show necessity. This is the executive summary, it can be shown in tedious detail that we should probably not be trusting climate modeling for /any/ decisions involving human life or welfare.

        Okay, California has huge smog issues. This isn’t something we should be trying to fix with technology, those cities are simply overpopulated, and would be fine if some of the people moved to places where the weather is better at dispersing emissions.

        This, before we go into pedantry about ‘what is the environment, does it really exist’.

        The health arguments can be approached in similar ways. Fundamentally, human biology is complex, there is a lot of individual variation, and the studies have issues once you get to really looking at them, and wondering how strong they really are.

        Liked by 2 people

  12. Well this is all horrifying. It also reminds me of people being like “this is a safe place” thinking that means it’s safe in all ways, and just no: safe for who? and under what circumstances? Because what’s safe for one person is *by it’s very nature* not safe for people who want to attack them. Nothing is safe for everyone but that’s not a bad thing.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. There are generally fundamental trade offs that make it difficult to achieve perfect safety.

      Consider table saws, and loss of operator fingers. If the operator knows what they are going, thinks about it, and pays attention, there are fairly reliable ways of avoiding injury. Like, always using a push stick. It is also possible for an operator to coast for decades on their raw ability, avoiding injuries, then get hurt because they were not always using a push stick. One answer is a bunch of automated safety measures to, in theory, take the operator out of the safety picture.

      There are several practical issues with relying on the safeguards of a power tool. One, you are putting responsibility on the safeguard/equipment designers instead, and they are also human. (Some people say “have the computer do the design”, then “have a computer design the computer”, but you always have at the root level have a human designing a computer.) Two, you can always find a bigger idiot to misuse a tool, and this is worse when they have an invincible trust in the automatic safeguards.

      Very generally, we learn to avoid injury in part by way of pain and being harmed.

      Kids who are incapable of feeling pain tend to accumulate a lot of injuries while moving around, because they don’t learn to avoid running into walls, etc.

      Now, the sadist’s answer to this dilemma may be to proclaim that they are helping as they hurt others for their own fun. That is a behavior we ought not encourage. At the same time, too much helping people avoid pain seems to injure them.

      I got to wonder if this is a result of generations of cohorts learning from parents who are heavily white collar/welfare and teachers who only have academic experience.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. I think schools shutting down shop and home ec classes in favor of “teach to the test” was a grave mistake. At the very least, I think everybody ought to learn enough cooking skills to stay alive – getting burned on hot pans would also teach some measure of caution!

        Liked by 1 person

      2. My Mom is a teacher who saw this shift happen in real time (and I was in school DURING the start of the shift to focus on the test and ONLY the test) and GOOD LORD do both of us concur with this
        Shop, home etc… basic REAL LIFE stuff tossed aside for a test
        In a way it’s ‘blue collar/trade’ getting tossed aside for ‘white collar/academic’
        See also: the way job requirements have gone from ‘high school diploma’ to ‘Bachelors’ and the way trade schools are discouraged (at best) for the full length of public school education

        Liked by 2 people

      3. *raises hand with large scar over thumb’s lowest joint*

        If you’re not allowed to control a class, you can’t do anything dangerous. Folks get hurt.

        I, of course, think the solution is “allow teachers to control their classroom, and remove those who are a hazard,” but…well, that’s another reason we home school.

        Liked by 3 people

      4. Given some of the dangerous shit I saw happen in classrooms, esp when the teachers had no control (either from their own choice or not) I agree most heartily.

        Granted, I have had two teachers who… well, let’s just say there is a reason I thought Mrs. Trunchbull in Matilda was REALISTIC growing up (Stll have scars both mental and physical from those assholes). So too much control, or someone cruel having control can be a bad thing too.
        As with all things, moderation can be key. Teachers need to be able to control the class… but too much control can be just as bad

        …Good lord though do I wish home schooling was a more viable option. …or hell, ‘home school classrooms’ where home schooled students can go to one person’s house and work together/be taught there. My mom was a tutor for a while when me and my sibs were young, and I know a lot of people who don’t go for home schooling because they an’t be there to teach/help or the kids REALLY want/need social itneractions and so on
        (this came out cluttered, my apologies, my brain is being very dumb today :/ )

        Liked by 3 people

      5. Looks fine to me. 😀

        Depending on area, co-ops do the school experience without the school part. I don’t care for co-ops, and as homeschooler we are REAL homebodies; in normal weeks we’ll commonly spend at least three days a week at home. (Go to the zoo, the library, the park, museums, mid-week camping trips — University of Iowa was very nice)

        The last year was bad for us, I can’t imagine how it is for kids who don’t have a house full of siblings and a big yard.

        Liked by 2 people

      6. *Nod* I have a personal ax to grind on this because when I tried to stand on my own two feet, everyone I asked for advice on “how to live” said “get more school!”

        …It isn’t the solution, it really isn’t. I would have been better off if someone said, “get a job, any job, and spend weekends reading anything interesting in the university library”.

        Liked by 2 people

      7. Yup, I got told the same by pretty much everyone except my Dad. …I love my Mom but she 100% felt that the ONLY OPTION to a good life was more and more college and the like. Even when the jobs I’ve enjoyed the most and gotten the best pay for have been trade jobs (carpentry, flipping houses, welding, etc) as compared to my editing work, secretarial and substitute work
        …My job history is ECCENTRIC…

        There is a HEAVY push from social media/TV/film towards white collar jobs… which all reuire more and more school education. Even though they are much more NEEDED, often have more openings, and can even pay better…
        trade jobs tend to be looked down upon and the like
        (plus the mess of trying to treat jobs that are supposed to be short term/stepping stones as ‘life time careers… good lord)

        Liked by 2 people

      8. Thank God for Chief O’Brien.

        …yes, the one on Star Trek. Got me thinking about what the Enlisted actually do, and talking to family, and the Navy worked out great. 😀

        I would’ve killed someone in college.

        Liked by 3 people

      9. It was Scotty for me, unfortunately my pelvis (and thigh) were destroyed in a… incident… when I was 16 and no matter how much I WANTED to serve… (Apparently jealous girls and large statues and my body don’t mix =_= )
        Scotty is why my dad became a computer engineer when he left the Navy ^_^
        Severely handicapped meant I could not. Honestly, not being able to serve and becoming a Chief like my Dad (and his dad, and his granddad and so many uncle and multiple aunts) is one of my strongest regrets.

        From a Navy Brat who 100% planned to go enlisted I offer you a salute and high five (also my Dad offers you smiles and a salute too, he loved his time serving)

        Liked by 2 people

      10. I’m sorry to hear that– though the family part makes sense on why you ‘sound’ familiar. 😀 Mom’s brothers were all Navy, and my husband’s family goes back through the Navy with only a few black-sheep Marines, one Army, though some crossed services later. (yes, is a running joke)

        The injury kind of explains the “push to educated, educated and more educated” thing, These days, I’d probably push you to apply for a DoD office job– someone who actually knows the language is invaluable, and there are technician slots. (And yes, you can do it without a degree, civilians go through various schools with military members.)
        Plus, a civilian woman that can talk Navy is really good for shutting down the drama that can sometimes start up, just by being hard to “recruit” to any side, and thus creating a neutral option; they’re not enlisted, officer or civilian, exactly. Prior service guy can do the same thing, especially if it’s a different service. Smart managers (and yes, they exist) pay attention to that kind of thing.

        Liked by 2 people

      11. *Chuckles* my family is all Navy, Marines, Coasties and CBs where they aren’t civvie Sailors going back literal centuries. No Army or Air force anywhere, it’s kinda funny XD It’s a running joke in our family too ^_^

        *nods* I went from a tomboy ballet dancer and gymnast with plans to join the Navy to ‘cripple who has to use her brains not her brawn’ in one very catastrophic moment.
        I always understood WHY my Mom pushed for education as hard as she did. Not only was it the only real viable option for me for a long while (PT and being a stubborn ass stereotypical Taurus means I can do a LOT more now, I can even go without my leg brace and cane often now!! ^^) but she’s a New Yorker to the bone. City Girl and college educated with a doctorates and her family has ALWAYS been white collar/highly educated (hell, one of them was a Yale Founder)
        It’s what she knows to work, bring in a livable income, and SHE loves city life and teaching and… much as I love her… the idea that other people might not feel/think the same way she does is something she’s always had trouble with ^^;;
        So I’m an editor (mostly science articles and the like), I having a teaching certificate and can substitute, I have ‘media specialist’ listed as a career, and I’ve worked as a professional researcher and secretary as well.
        Annnnnnnd I’ve worked welding, carpentry, house flipping, landscaping, I can lay any flooring but carpet (hips can’t manage it), I do plumbing, framing… pretty much everything but electrical, I can do basic car repair work, etc
        I’m like that ‘jack of all trades’ OC that you see in all the bad fanfics XD

        Huh… DoD is oddly something that never occurred to me to try for
        thank you for the suggestion, I’ll have to check it out! ^_^

        Liked by 3 people

      12. Heck, these days you might be able to make money teaching home-school classes online, some states require teaching certificates and many parents are more comfortable if one has one.

        Liked by 2 people

      13. I did know that, but not until like 15 years later, those guys work(ed) with the one trustworthy branch of the Mexican military!

        (Which may or may not have been purged/murdered in the last five years, I’m getting complicated information. All open source, some from Borderland Beats– DO NOT SUGGEST NOT WORK SAFE NOT SANE SAFE– but those guys did good work.)

        Liked by 3 people

      14. I was seriously debating Coasties too, as I’ve TONS of respect for them and all the work they do. Sorry to hear you’ve a bad knee and Lyme! Hope both are improved and give you as little trouble as possible now and moving forward ^_^

        Liked by 1 person

      15. OUCH, I know how much of a pain that can be (Yay on the Lyme though!)
        I hope it’s manageable at least, and am wishing you the best ^^
        *also chucks aspercream your way. Seriously that stuff is GOLD* XD

        Liked by 1 person

      16. Yeah, college is wildly oversold.

        Situation looks like it may be corrected soon.

        I ranted about it here last week on this very post. Pretty much everyone can see that the very best outcome that can occur from college comes with too much kowtowing to destructive vicious idiots.

        The noise I’m seeing, I’m certain people are going to wise up.

        Liked by 3 people

  13. I’m in favor of focused college experience toward a job or career that has the openings you need and fits your abilities. I am definitely not in favor of college for the sake of college. My personal experience:

    High school to Bachelors to Masters to no job openings.

    back to the drawing board…

    Associates to job that bought me my house (in an area where housing is notoriously difficult to afford and getting worse) and also payed for the schooling and on-site training to get better pay and more career options in the same field.

    If I had to go back and do it all over again I think I’d skip the bachelors/masters and go straight to the associates that actually worked. Also, the associates path led to to a job I suspect I find more fulfilling and less stressful that the original plan, and one that I know pays better.

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s