Hey, hostile visitors! Do you have an opinion about, for example, Mary Koss’ rape research? Do you want to discuss it even though the topic has not actually come up by itself in any of the threads and none of my recent posts really have much to do with the specifics of anyone’s rape research? Well, from now on you can discuss it here with anyone who wishes to follow you to this thread.
Added bonus: If you continue to try to discuss it in other threads you’ll be banned!
This also applies to future derailers riding hobbyhorses of their own having nothing to do with Koss.
Happy discussing!
Note: If you wish to discuss the topics at hand, you know, topics directly related to my posts and/or to what other people are discussing and that aren’t, you know, personal hobbyhorses of yours that involve long screeds and various things that you’ve probably already cut and pasted into the comments sections of various other websites until you were banned from them for endless derailing and general asswipery, feel free to remain in the original threads.
“Troll is considered by most linguists* to be one of the most difficult languages in the world.”
Is it sort of like Cat, where one word can mean In, Out, Food, Cuddles, and Get Out Of My Chair?
@Kittehserf: Cat really warrants an analysis of its own. So far, most linguists* agree that Cat, just like Troll, uses miniscule changes in tone of voice to change the meaning completely. However, whereas trolls often rely on redundant vocabulary to establish dominance within a discourse, cats usually just sort of take their dominance as assumed, so they don’t bother to elaborate on their demands with what they see are “unnecessary words”. In a way, the two take a completely different approach to the problem of language barrier. It’s a fascinating subject, to be sure, but since my major is translation studies, not discourse analysis, I’m afraid I’m unfit to give a more thorough answer.
By the way, I am now kitty. Two-Face Kitty. Two-Face Kitty has seen things. Terrible things. Things that cannot be unseen. I would love to cuddle kitty, but allergies at home. No can has kitty. Oh well.
*Citation still needed.
Cat is a far more elegant language, being possessed of a beautiful simplicity that Troll lacks. Also some people find the sound of Cat pleasing to the ear, whereas the sound of Troll makes everyone in earshot wish they had a mute button.
how2sarcasm:
Wow, you sure showed that troll. All those unfunny, desperate sounding personal insults and links to feminist blogs are probably something he’s never seen before, and will definitely make him reconsider his views. You angry cat ladies are some real intellectual titans.
BTW since all the pet lovers seem to be in this thread – Mr C met one of these today.
http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/caucasianowtcharka.htm
He said it wasn’t fully grown yet but already enormous.
They’re supposed to be super aggressive but oddly enough he said the dog was pretty calm, willing to be petted.
Now I feel bad for potentially scaring people with that “sensationalism sells!” National Geographic video.
The dog Mr C met was more like this.
Caution! Ironic Title!
@CassandraSays, I know this is ancient history but I’ve been at work and busy doing lots of other shit after work and it’s taken me an hour to even catch up but you posted:
I fucking called it, I fucking called it:
It’s ParentDar. Apparently it works even with people who are not your children, and for events that are more than 30 years in the past.
I can tell when my cat is up to no good too, but luckily she has no access to sharks.
@Cassandra: As a linguist, I disagree. Languages differ in more ways than just aesthetics. Cat may sound much, much, much more pleasing to a human’s ear, true. However, while the actual words are usually disjointed gibberish with no rhyme or reason, the way Troll conveys truckloads of information about the speaker’s character (often without the speaker’s intention to boot) makes me find it very useful and informative to the listener.
As a normal fucking person who thinks this joke of imagining trolls as a foreign and fascinating species evolved from creatures of folklore instead of pathetic human individuals picking fights on the internet is starting to get old, I couldn’t agree more.
Oh, and cute doggies!
Troll is a difficult language, because it allows for words to have multiple, contradictory meanings. This is not unique to Troll; but in most languages which allow for antonymic homonyms the context makes it clear. Moreover those languages don’t allow for the dichotomic usage to be performed in the same thought.
If we look at recent examples, in the wild (see GNL’s use of Troll [sub-dialect, Illogical Contrarian], “equality” means “men and women can never be equal”, as well as, “men and women should be treated the same”) this usage and is has no marker symbols to make clear what the meaning is at the time of usage.
Only by active engagement, and using interlocutory interrogatives which are absent any trace of nuance, can the internal understanding of the individual speakers heuristic map be ascertained. These heuristic models, of course, are fluid, and no speaker of troll (esp. in the Contrarian Sub-dialects) is ever certain to claim the same beliefs from one conversation to the next (though the speakers of both, the Common Sense and Superior Understanding dialects are more likely to present a consistent belief structure over time).
In most cases the inherent instability of definitional meaning is the cause of ultimate breakdown in higher linguistic function. Because the mutability of usage definitions creates, to the less than fluent speaker of troll, the sense that a consistent worldview is being used, (when in fact the only consistent object is an onotological understanding that the thing they oppose must be wrong in some way) eventually causes the person trying to use Troll to express a complex argument over time to become mired in defense of past statements which are at odds with the apparent present position being held.
This leads to a functional break in the ability to reason, even in a language as flexible with meaning as Troll. This is commonly called a “meltdown”. Experienced speakers of Troll can be identified by the regular use of hiatus in their participation in areas where they will be engaged by more than one or two people who are competent at recognising the equivocational aspects of Troll usage, and challenge the speaker to pick just one.
@CassandraSays
I have nothing to add to this conversation, but those were super beautiful dogs
Well this thread is effectively dead, but I went to bed and want to mention a few things.
“If, on the other hand, you posit that animals have fundamentally different relationships with each other, including predatory ones, and that such relationships are not only not morally wrong but in fact necessary and obligatory for the health of the ecosystem, then it follows that humans may also have a different relationship with animals than with other humans, and said relationships might include predation.”
Mentioned a few times already, but I, by and large, don’t eat meat (I have a soft spot for poultry, but eat it rarely, so yep, not the environmental impact of frequent meat eaters)…and my new boots are my first leather anything ever. Because I fell in love at first sight. Point here? I squick at the animal channel and get all “well predators need to eat, but I don’t have to watch”. Because yes, all species have different relations with other species than their own (ok, mostly, yet again, fish are weird)
Pecunium — you forgot elephants on your list of sapient species.
Fade and Marie — I was hyperbolizing burning fossil fuels and the extremely unlikely possibility of creating enough greenhouse gases to turn earth into a planet like venus. Thanks for playing along (and saying that dinosaurs shouldn’t be burned, you agree with me accidentally, see, I knew it!)
Lol, I was trying to bait GNL, but really just ended up wanting to explain 🙂
Linguistics — NWO was the most complex dialect of troll as one needed a base understanding of sovereign citizen, MRA, paranoia, and veiled perv.
Oh and of course male/female isn’t the only grouping where one is privledged, learn to fucking read. Cis people // trans* people, whites // everybody, non-disabled // disabled, and a bunch more.
But if GNL continues to ignore all other factors while misusing intersectionality then I guess that sure, only his hobbyhorse applies here. When back in reality land, intersectionality, in a nut shell, means that it’s complex.
Also, the largest shark that isn’t a filter feeder is the great white, topping out at 23′
So that’d have to be one tiny ass boat. I’m guessing it’s a fin and the shark itself is slightly tinted by the color of the water.
@Argenti: given the size and shape of the shark, compared to this basking shark here, I was kind of thinking that shark right there is, in fact, a filter feeder.
Even so, there’s something about the perspective of that picture that makes me think something is somehow off. (I don’t want to say photoshopped, because it’s not really a high enough quality picture for me to tell, but something about the way the light seems different around the shark is throwing me off)
It is possible for a society to oppress men for being men, but it hasn’t happened and isn’t happening. Like Argenti said, though, men aren’t the only category of privileged people. There aren’t any societies that disadvantage people for being white, cis, able, heterosexual, or wealthy either.
Zie’s not the only MRA I’ve seen talk about feminist overlords putting them in cages. It’s like hey, most of us feminists are sex positive, but we still don’t need to know all the details of their fantasies. There are other parts of the Internet where they can talk all about their kinks.
I think you’re right that it’s regional. Missouri is going to enact a right to farm bill, which was basically written as a backlash against animal rights groups making undercover videos at factory farms. Some of our legislators in Jefferson City also said they need to protect Missouri farmers from animals rights people after the whole puppy mill bill. Some group from California also protested in front of a Joplin supermarket recently, which has made people scared that animal rights groups want to take food away or make food more expensive.
I believe that as the population rises, the cost of food will rise so much that very few people, even in wealthy countries, will be able to buy beef anymore. I am hopeful, though, that other types of meat and protein will become more common. Already, much of the world eats insects. Now if people took up insect farming in a big way, that would make it possible to feed a world of 10 billion with enough protein, because insects breed very quickly and they don’t share the same diseases with people. They also don’t use much water, which is in short supply unless we figure out cheap ways to do desalinization.
Other meat sources of the future could be rabbit farms, guinea pigs, squirrels, and other small mammals. They don’t take up nearly the space as cows or pigs, they breed quickly, and they grow to adult size faster. There is less risk of drought ruining their pasture like what happens with cattle, too.
The biggest risk to our food supply in the next few decades is probably colony collapse disorder. One third of the world’s food comes from pollination by bees, so we are going to have to figure out how to save the bees or find ways to replace them and pollinate fruit plants, soy beans, and vegetables without them. It’s scary, but I’m hopeful that people are smart enough to adapt to such risks, and that’s why people have been so successful so far.
Howard — I think the weird lighting is just an artifact of the water being so clear and the general issues of photographing underwater things. Only decent looking underwater photos I’ve ever taken were with my lens against the tank’s glass and no flash.
But I was thinking basking shark myself, either the size and shape are off because of perspective, or it isn’t a great white. And if not, then it’s smaller than it looks.
Really hard to judge size without a reference point.
I realize I’m a bit late to this party, so I apologize for that. But as an ethical vegan who is also getting a degree in paleobiology (sort of a double major in geology and evolutionary biology), I feel like I should offer my perspective on the animal rights discussion that’s been going on.
First, for consideration, here is a link to The Cambridge Declaration of Consciousness, issued in 2012 at the end of the Francis Crick Memorial Conference on Consciousness in Human and Non-human Animals:
http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf
Link to the conference website — http://fcmconference.org/
I became a vegan slowly, over many years, and finally crossed the Rubicon 8 years ago after learning “too much” about how nature and animals really work. The contrast between my inherited pop culture/Animal Planet/Discovery Channel understanding of “nature,” and the reality of nature, just became too stark, and I could no longer convince myself that nonhuman animals were so radically different from humans that my preference for the taste of pork chops really outweighed the any pig’s right to not be killed unjustly.
And for me, that’s really what it’s about: don’t kill others unjustly, even by proxy. It is not necessary for me to eat other animals, or wear their skins, so I don’t. I also don’t think anyone else should, either.
Finally, on the point that’s been raised that eating vegan is an expression of “privilege”: not true. Eating animal products at every meal, every day, along with processed foods from boxes and bags, is the privileged way of eating. The vast majority of the world’s poorest people live on diets composed mostly of whole, unprocessed plant foods, mostly grains. Sure, they’re not vegans — they’ll eat meat when they can get it — but the notion that the world’s poor are eating lots of meat out of necessity while it’s only the privileged who eat vegan or vegetarian is simply backwards. Meat is a status food.
I have a lot to say on this, and I don’t want to post something TL;DR, so I’ll stop here. But thanks for considering.
@Bob
Okay, so some poor people get mostly unprocessed foods and some get more processed meat. I think that which one’s cheaper varies by location.
And I don’t think that not eating meat is necesarily cruelty free, as the messed up agricultural system that underpays lots of the workers exists. I don’t know if there’s a way to get cruelty free food in teh first world, which you know, first world problems.
Bob – I’m not going to yield on being veganism being a privilege. The idea that it isn’t drives me nuts, even as a vegetarian and animal lover. Often, animal products are calorie dense, and when you’re trying to feed a kid on, say, food stamps in the US, getting enough calories without animal products just isn’t feasible. I don’t think eating processed animal products from boxes is representative of privilege. If anything, their ubiquity just demonstrates how much global power organizations like Kraft have accumulated. Plus, I’m on board with people who hunt in an ethical, sustainable way — i.e., kill a couple deer a year and freeze to eat all year. Eating locally seems like it is the best bet from an environmental perspective, but that does not necessarily mean be a vegan. Vegans in NYC have so many products shipped from overseas (coconuts, tropical fruits, soy, brazil nuts, etc., etc.) that I imagine the carbon footprints might be massive. I’ve got no citations, though!
WARNING: This post may be TL:DR
@bahumbugi
Bob – I’m not going to yield on being veganism being a privilege. The idea that it isn’t drives me nuts, even as a vegetarian and animal lover.
That doesn’t make it true, though. 🙂
Often, animal products are calorie dense, and when you’re trying to feed a kid on, say, food stamps in the US, getting enough calories without animal products just isn’t feasible.
I sincerely doubt this is true. Beans are calorie-dense, too, and (especially dry) cost a hell of a lot less per pound than meat. A lot of this comes down not to lack of resources, but lack of education. People eat what they’re familiar with, what they’ve been taught to eat, what’s been effectively marketed to them. Nutrition awareness isn’t exactly a priority in education given to low-income families (or really anyone else), other than the USDA food pyramid, which has its own problems.
I am poor. I live in a low-income neighborhood in a major U.S. city, where most residents don’t have a car. Within walking distance of my home, there are two grocery stores plus a mom & pop market, that all sell fresh fresh produce and dried beans and grains by the pound. All of them take food stamps. But, they are outnumbered by fast food joints and junk-food convenience stores. I did the math for my own experience, and saved $2000/year by going vegan and spending my food budget on whole, unprocessed foods bought from my local grocery stores and prepared at home. The family next door to me (a single mom + 2 children, with support from her brothers and sisters), after talking to me about it for many months, decided to try it out for a month, and they saved so much money that they decided to make the switch permanently. I doubt the kids are vegan when away from home and with friends, but their mom runs a vegan home on food stamps, and saves money doing it.
Of course, I’m aware of the danger of universalizing this one anecdote, but there are lots of resources available to people interested in trying it out.
I don’t think eating processed animal products from boxes is representative of privilege. If anything, their ubiquity just demonstrates how much global power organizations like Kraft have accumulated.,/i>
I agree that food corporations have a lot of global power. But they still largely market their pre-packaged foods where the globally richest people live. As another anecdotal example, check out this social media project where families from around the world submitted pictures of their week’s worth of groceries — http://imgur.com/a/mN8Zs I see a lot of whole, unprocessed, plant-based foods in the pics with families from developing nations, and a lot of boxed, bagged and otherwise pre-packaged foods in the pics from families in the developed world. There are cultural differences reflected, obviously — the Mongolians have more meat than the Malians, for instance — but I think the pattern is pretty clear. Processed animal products from boxes is representative of privilege, from a global perspective.
Plus, I’m on board with people who hunt in an ethical, sustainable way — i.e., kill a couple deer a year and freeze to eat all year.
Well, the problem with that is that, in aggregate, their activities aren’t sustainable, and arguably never have been. Hunting by humans — not just poaching — is either the 2nd or 3rd leading cause of global biodiversity loss and species extinction, depending on which set of statistics you consider more reliable. http://www.snre.umich.edu/~dallan/nre220/outline5.htm And there’s pretty strong evidence in the fossil record that traditional hunter-gatherer style hunting drove the mass extinction of large mammals at the Pleistocene-Holocene transition. http://darwin.bio.uci.edu/~sustain/bio65/lec04/b65lec04.htm So, “ethical, sustainable hunting” ain’t all it’s cracked up to be.
Eating locally seems like it is the best bet from an environmental perspective, but that does not necessarily mean be a vegan. Vegans in NYC have so many products shipped from overseas (coconuts, tropical fruits, soy, brazil nuts, etc., etc.) that I imagine the carbon footprints might be massive. I’ve got no citations, though!
Eating locally is over-rated, if one’s concern is carbon footprints. Check out this study, one of the few done on the subject. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es702969f
Among its findings are that food miles are not an accurate way to measure a food’s ecological footprint, because transportation of food accounts for only about 15 percent of its ecological footprint; production, storage, whether a food is animal or plant, non-carbon greenhouse gas emissions, scale, and other factors account for about 83 percent of a food’s carbon footpritnt; for the average U.S. household, eating vegan food one day a week achieves a greater reduction in environmental degradation than eating local animal products every day.
Okay, this isn’t me snarking just for the record. What kind of stuff do you normally eat and how much do you spend on groceries a week? I’m asking b/c I’m probably going to move out of my parents house soon, and it would be a good idea to know some healthy cheap foods.
If you don’t want to give advice, feel free to ignore this comment.
And oops, sorry if that typo-induced formatting error is confusing.
@greendaywantsavatars,
I agree that there’s no 100 percent cruelty-free way of obtaining food. But, the ethical argument for veganism is not based on a claim otherwise.
As for what I eat: I live with housemates, and we each contribute ~$20/week to the grocery jar. Our staples are dried beans, seeds and grains in bulk, which is the best way to buy them because they’ll store for a really long time, and are more versatile (they can be ground, sprouted, or cooked). We also stay stocked up on fresh fruit and veggies, many of which we chop in advance then store for quick prep access for times when we’re on the go.
Each us has our own tastes, and so buy things just for ourselves when we can. But on average, a little less than $80/week feeds four adult humans a healthy vegan diet every day. If you’re looking for specific advice, I recommend books like Eat Vegan On $4 A Day — http://www.amazon.com/Eat-Vegan-4-00-Day-Conscious/dp/1570672571 and Vegan On The Cheap — http://www.amazon.com/Vegan-Cheap-Robin-Robertson/dp/0470472243/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_y