conuly

Every time I read the comments to an article that touch on ANY linguistic subject, I'm going to look up That One Chaucer Quote first. Then I'll just spam it at people who talk about "dumbing down" language, or "the decline of civilization", or "wild-eyed linguists and psychologists", or anything else along those lines.

Ahem:

Ye knowe eek, that in forme of speche is chaunge
Withinne a thousand yeer, and wordes tho
That hadden prys, now wonder nyce and straunge
Us thinketh hem; and yet they spake hem so,
And spedde as wel in love as men now do;
Eek for to winne love in sondry ages,
In sondry londes, sondry ben usages.

Long story short, Geoffrey is getting at the fact that language changes and we'd all damn well better get used to it already. This isn't news, folks! Chaucer knew it, Shakespeare knew it, you'd better all figure it out!

When I leave a long, thoughtful review on how a certain book sends the message that it's okay for autistic people to kill themselves because, after all, it's not like we fit in, there are a number of correct responses to that.

Not a single one of those responses is "Please use person first language!" Not even as part of another response.

Because seriously? Fuck that shit right there. This is exactly the problem! If you can't remember which people are really people because we don't all talk funny? That's all on you. That's not my concern. Maybe if you didn't think we all had to talk funny first you'd be more on top of having people love and accept their autistic family members.

I am done. I am no longer even going to reply to people who think it's oh-so-crucial to call me out on my use of the word "autistic" when that word does, in fact, apply to me.

(And it really bugs me because I couldn't care less if you use person-first language or not. This is me, not caring. But do I get the same respect and consideration about my language choices, when I promise you I've thought more deeply about it than they have? No, no I do not.)

Tomorrow maybe I'll feel bad for being snippy towards this person, but honestly: STOP telling people to use person-first language! It's really not God's gift to human discourse.

THEY'RE NOCTURNAL!

So when you finally finish what you have to do in the evening, and hop into bed, and turn off the light - guess what? You're only going to get 10 or 20 of your winks because at 4:30 on the dot the kittens are going to start racing around madly in a fight to the death. My alarm went off at 6:10 (yeah, like that was gonna happen) and by 6:20, when I absolutely HAD to get up, the kittens had decided to curl up and sleep again. Great timing there.

Did I mention they did this on my bed? Yeah, a few weeks ago mama cat figured out they couldn't jump up onto that bed, so she started hanging out there. But then the kittens learned how to climb up there, and now they stay on the bed as much as possible, which is GREAT when they're sleeping and quiet and cuddly, but not so much when they're trying to kill everything that moves, and also me.

Also, they can't get down on their own, which means their mom likes to climb up there, mrowp so they follow her, and then jump down and leave them stranded while she goes about her day. Guess who gets tasked with kitten retrieval?

The obvious solution here, of course, would be to lock the kittens in the kitchen for the night. But then I wouldn't be able to snuggle them right before bed!

Man, whoever domesticated cats.... I like cats just fine myself, but what genius first thought "Hey! A nocturnal killing machine! I'm gonna bring it into my house and see if it'll sit on my lap and lick me with its icky mouse breath!"?

(Logical punctuation is a fine thing, but sometimes it looks really funny. Not that the standard way would look any less funny.)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again in response to each and every one of these (but, you know, say it in your head, I'm not retyping it every time) - some people just don't like to read.

( Read more... )

Before you get a pet you can't take care of, learn how to take care of that pet. Over in P101 there's a post from this woman agonizing over whether or not to tell her kid that he killed his fish.

Further commentary reveals that the fish is probably dying due to poor conditions because, as the OP says, she knows "nothing about fish". If you know nothing about fish, why the hell do you even HAVE a fish? Get some other pet you DO know something about!

For crying out loud, people don't even trust they can have their children without reading up on the subject, and you're *supposed* to know a little about the care and feeding of humans, being one yourself. This woman won't even make a non-life-and-death decision (about telling her two year old what happened to the fish) without consulting us... but she's going to take care of her fish without even finding out HOW to take care of a fish without it going belly up?

Sure, you say her kid is more important than a fish, and that's probably true from most perspectives (excepting that of the fishie, of course, but what do you expect?), but all the same. Don't get a pet you can't take care of. Sheesh. Isn't this just basic common sense?

Recently she's begun overcoming this - as I say and have said before, she's finally hit the terrible twos.

And for the most part, this is a good thing. She doesn't let Ana walk all over her anymore. If she wants to play Princess and Ana relegates her to the role of the baby, she doesn't just say "Okay" about it. If Ana decides something is gross or ugly or stupid, she doesn't just agree and put it down. For that matter, she'll now occasionally pick something without waiting to just copy what Ana picks! (That was the source of 18 months worth of consternation on Ana's part, who took to whispering in my ear.)

She stands up for herself, and for the most part, I'm happy to see this.

Of course, she's also started occasionally throwing tantrums. And when I say this, you have to understand that she basically never threw tantrums at three, or four. The only event I can even remember stands out because of how pathetic it was - she said she didn't want to nap, and then she took her mouth close to my hand and pretended to bite me. It was the most inept tantrum I've ever seen in my life, and she was all done in half an hour anyway.

I mean, she did throw tantrums before, occasionally, but not many and they were over quickly and almost always when she was extremely tired.

She actually threw two tantrums at the Y this week. The first one, after swimming, she refused to get out of her bathing suit and refused to get back INTO her bathing suit, so she just sat there half naked and screamed (until somebody came in and told her they could hear her outside. Then she stopped.) She also held onto her chair with all her might, and after determining that it'd be really hard to get her to stop without hurting either her or me (and hurting a little half-naked child in the locker room of the Y has got to be the worst possible ending to a tantrum EVER) I resolved to just wait her out (I didn't know they could hear her outside either) by sitting as far away as possible.

That ended fairly well, once she realized they could hear her outside. (And to her credit, she didn't scream today either.)

Her tantrum today started when she realized that her outfit for Tae Kwon Do was too big. I sympathized, but once again she refused to either take it off or keep it on. (Plus, you don't get your way by STARTING with a tantrum.) I managed to wrestle her into it, but then she neither wanted to leave nor go to class. So we stood at the door while I tried to convince her to just make a choice already. ANY choice.

While she's there whining (no screaming at the Y!) a woman comes up and asks "Do you need help?"

I figure she means, like, help manhandling her or bribing her to behave, and I go "No thanks". As she elucidated later, she meant psychiatric help, but we'll get to that.

After this comment followed what has to have been the worst-timed conversation I've ever had.

Busybody: Well, she's clearly upset about something!
My thoughts: No duh!
Me: Yes, well, she can't just whine about it. Evangeline, are we staying or going?
Busybody: Well, if she doesn't want to go to class, you shouldn't force her.
My thoughts: Aside from the fact that I'm NOT, I'm glad you have money to throw away like that.
Me: Well, I can't stay here, her sister is out in the waiting room with her homework.
Busybody: There must be something wrong.
Me: Her outfit is too big, but there's not much we can do about that. Evangeline, which is it?
Busybody: No, something in her life.
My thoughts: Well, I sure the hell am not about to talk about the recent changes in her life to YOU, random stranger!
Me: I don't think so :) Eva?
Busybody: You need to talk to her doctor about that.
My thoughts: About tae kwon do? Or sewing?
Me: No, I think she might just be a little tired.
Busybody: Then you shouldn't come here! You should go home so she can rest!
My thoughts: Right, I'm going to make Ana suffer so Evangeline can refuse to take a nap at home.
Me: She's five. She hardly ever naps anymore.
Busybody: You need to talk to the doctor then. Or YOUR doctor if you can't see there's something wrong.
Me: There's nothing wrong. She's five. They throw tantrums.
Busybody: MY child never acted like THAT. (Like "that" is whining and clinging to my leg. It was the quietest tantrum you ever saw.)
My thoughts: Well, bully for you! I'm glad to hear that your child is perfect, your life is perfect, and that YOU are perfect!
Busybody: I mean, if you're not feeling up to taking care of -

At this point I gave up on manners, as she clearly had none, and told her the truth, which is that I was feeling just fine and had no problems until some busybody started sticking her nose where it wasn't wanted.

And then I managed to unstick Evangeline and drag her off to the waiting room, where Ana convinced her to stop the whining portion of her tantrum by asking her to be quiet so we wouldn't have to go home and Ana could make it to her class.

A few minutes later Evangeline had calmed down enough to consent to take a piggyback ride to pick up her shoes from the gym. Along the way we passed one of her teachers (who had come looking for us) and the busybody, who - hilariously - was tattling on me to him!

Busybody: She was one of those women who looks like - oh, there she is now!

I have no IDEA what I look like, because I was there now.

Once back inside the doors another woman told me I was doing nothing wrong, which I knew, of course, but it's nice to hear. I wish I'd been thinking a little faster, I would've sent her out to counter-tattle.

Oh well. My diabolical plan was to convince Evangeline to rejoin her class, but that didn't work. Still, after she got over her embarrassment of the whole situation she was cheerful and chipper right up until we got home and she had to take a shower. We read a few books, and the second chapter of The Penderwicks, and we ate dinner and all, and she was asleep by 8:15... sadly, before her mother came home. She really was a little tired.

I swear, though, I meet the most judgmental people on Thursdays! It was two Thursdays ago, en route to the Y on a bus, that I met Mr. "Control Your Kids", who apparently objected to the kids existing. It was a crowded bus, and their behavior wasn't quite up to my standards, but he would not have even NOTICED they weren't behaving (fidgeting a little, that sort of thing, except that when every inch counts you can't have fidgety children) if I hadn't been reminding them! He apparently felt that "Control your kids" was the necessary refrain to every statement I made, statements such as "No, I'm sorry, you can't look out the window, sweetie" and "Ana, you're crowding your sister there". (There were a few "Don't kick!"s in there as well, but not very many.) I told him what I thought too, in the end. You can think whatever you like, *I* certainly do, but nobody really wants to hear it.

"Oh, I am being constructive!

No, you aren't, sweetie. Not unless you either have my bag in hand or have the cash to replace everything in it! But I don't know, it's like she thinks what I really need and want is people dashing my hopes against the rocks!

THIS IS NOT HELPFUL.

Meanwhile, the newyorkers comm has its daily quota of "please adopt this cat" posts up in the form of a blind cat. This little ray of sunshine sure isn't commenting there going "Nobody's gonna want your blind cat, just toss it in the street!", even though we all do know that disabled kitties have a harder time getting adopted.

(Also, uh, anybody seen my bag? It has books in it!)

Edit: She's really just a very unpleasant person. I think if I go back there, I may lose it entirely, so could you do me a favor? Check in on the post a few times and if anybody ACTUALLY finds my bag or ACTUALLY has something useful to say, let me know? I hate to ask the favor, but I would like to refrain from cursing. I think I've been very good today.

A few weeks ago I read this book The Candy Shop War.

It's a fun, exciting book, and I don't recommend it because of how the author deals with race (which is to say, pretty badly.)

And I wrote a review about it! On Goodreads and LibraryThing I'm not alone, and on Amazon I largely am, but that's to be expected.

Anyway, I got into a conversation about it on somebody else's review.

( Read more... )

WTF? Did I not just say how I'd rather he describe all his characters, of all races? I'm sure I did. Am I wrong? Is this miscommunication on my part, or willful misunderstanding on theirs? Because I just don't see what went wrong.

I, um, try to keep it to reasonable levels?

Ana, the other day, was very upset by the litter on the way to the library. (I told her I'd scrounge up a plastic bag for the next time we go so she can gather it up.) "Why do people litter? It's all messy because people are stupid and rude and - "

Me: HOLD ON HERE!

Now, I hated to interrupt her, because if she sticks around with me she'll be pretty darn good at this righteous indignation bit. (Heck, she's pretty good at it now!) But I have a few opinions on the subject myself, and while I do think people shouldn't litter I *also* thought it was time for 5 minutes on the subject of social justice, socioeconomics, and how it relates to the placement and emptying of public garbage cans.

I mean, here we are at the intersection of one, two, three, FOUR major streets (and several other minor ones), at a bus stop where no less than six busses stop (in fact it's two bus stops, five feet away from each other, and the same two across the street going the other way), there's a public school RIGHT THERE, there's a lot of stores, there's the public pool and a park - and until you're actually standing at the bus stop there's no garbage can. In fact, as I showed Ana, the bus stop itself has comparatively little litter, although there's some because although it DOES have garbage cans they're not really sufficient for the amount of people passing through.

When there are garbage cans, people use them. When there aren't, they drop things on the ground. No argument that they shouldn't, but rather than yelling at them to carry their soda bottle an extra 6 blocks or bribing them with a quarter, isn't it easier to just put a garbage can where people are bound to be walking anyway? It certainly seems to work better.

Meanwhile, over in Battery Park City they have a garbage can every few feet, they empty them several times a day, and they even have dispensers for plastic bags specifically so dogwalkers who find themselves at a loss can still pick up the poo! The bags are probably compostable too.

BPC is where the rich people live. They can afford things like that. One of the reasons rich people like to live in areas like that is because it's clean. It's clean because people have a place to put their trash, not because rich people are inherently nicer to the environment!

On a semi-related note, Saturday I went out with Deniz and Su while their mother helped fix up a second room in my grandmother's apartment. Deniz carelessly tossed a straw wrapper on the ground RIGHT as I turned around to make sure she was still behind me. She didn't see me - and believe me, this is the sort of moment you dream of. I quickly turned BACK around and, with my back to her, said in my strictest voice "DENIZ. YOU PICK THAT UP RIGHT NOW."

I'm still giggling over it. Her "Wait, what? OH!" was priceless.

So, here I am over at FRK, and there's an article up about seedless watermelons, which are "better" than the other variety because "seeds are a choking hazard".

This of course is right up there with "cut these [mini] marshmallows up before serving them to your child!" in terms of silliness, but that's neither here nor there right now.

No, no, what's at issue is the fact that at least two of the commenters there, rather than just laughing at the line, are convinced it's the seedless varieties that are dangerous... because they're "unnatural". And also because plants can't reproduce without seeds.

I don't even know where to start, so let's start with....

1. Seedless fruit isn't unnatural. Seedless fruit is either a natural mutation (like grapes), or the result of the natural process of hybridization (like watermelons).

1a. Hybridization is not some sort of scary sciencey term either. You eat hybrids all the time. All it is is combining two different varieties of a plant (via pollination, not chemicals, nuclear radiation, and goggles!) to get a specific set of traits. It's no more advanced than Mendel.

1b. When it comes to watermelon, you're crossing a variety with 44 chromosomes and one with 22 chromosomes to make one with 33 chromosomes. A mule, basically. And because it's sterile, it doesn't produce seeds.

1c. Sure, you might argue that this sort of selective breeding is "unnatural", but if you're going that route you should admit that everything you eat is "unnatural", unless you subsist entirely on what you forage or hunt. (Definitely possible, but I call that unlikely.) Why? Because everything you eat is the process of thousands of years of selective breeding! It's evolution, but it's not evolution as God decreed, it's the sort that humans, who like to play God at every opportunity, came up with.

1d. In fact, when we're talking about "natural" vs. "unnatural" types of fruit, I'll take my organic seedless watermelon any day over a seeded variety that was grown with all sorts of fertilizers and pesticides. Not only is one more "natural" than the other, but it's also less likely to be covered in poisons. (And this is why you should wash your melons before you cut them open, btw, because your knife can carry what's on the rind to the yummy flesh inside.)

2. There's a serious hypocrisy in fearing "unnatural" watermelon (without having any idea how it's made, mind you) and talking about it on a computer. Of course, when you come right down to it, if your criteria is "God made plants with seeds", and we're really going THAT far back in time, everything we do and have is unnatural. And unless you're arguing that the entire agricultural revolution is unnatural (a possible argument, though barring WWIII I don't think we'll ever go back to the days of small bands of hunter gatherers, so I don't really see the point in it) and scary and "wrong"....

3. Then there's the "Plants are supposed to have seeds to reproduce!" argument. Sensible, thought out - and wrong. I mean, right in that we do want a little diversity in our edibles in order to prevent another potato famine (look at what happened to bananas!), but wrong in that it assumes the only way to get fruits and vegetables is through seeds.

You see, unlike us, many plants have the ability to reproduce asexually, via cutting or grafting or budding. Even plants with seeds, such as apples and cherries, aren't necessarily usually grown from seed. (Why? Because apples in particular aren't predictable. The seeds from your granny smith will NOT make little granny smith apple trees, and the odds are that what you get will be hard and inedible and tiny.)

On the one hand, if taken to extremes, this is a terrible thing because they might all be susceptible to the same type of blight... but on the other hand, this is a good thing because you get consistent results every time. You stick the eye of a potato in the ground, and you know exactly what you'll be digging up later.

Seedless watermelons, as it happens, DO grow from seeds. Seedless grapes? Not so much. Non-seedless grapes also aren't grown from seeds, though I'm sure they could be. (And this doesn't just apply to domesticated plants. When I asked about growing wild raspberry from seeds, the response was "I... don't know if you can do that", because raspberries don't usually spread that way.)

4. And let's just remember that the crux of this argument is "new things are scary, and what I perceive to be natural is safer". This is not only antithetical to the whole "Don't be scared!" idea of FRK that I don't even know why I'm the only person to respond to those comments, but it doesn't make any sense to me. But that's another issue in and of itself.