Hearing or seeing "they" in that context still makes me cringe a little, and so I generally avoid it one way or the other (either with s/he and such or by just composing the sentence differently), but I understand that it's a valid usage now. I do sort of wish we had a national language standards board that could make the pronouncement that it's 100% OK to do that and no one is allowed to think the less of you for it -- that might be enough to get me to feel comfortable using it myself.
I think there are a couple of different questions here:
1) Are our "chivalry-lite" cultural rules desirable in a society that generally aims for gender equality?
2) If not, is it better to teach kids the rules of society as it is (to the extent that these are the rules), or to teach them the rules as we'd like them to be?
Re #1, I'd just point out that I know a number of women who believe strongly in gender equality but who still expect to guys hold doors for them, especially their husband. I can certainly see the possibility that it conveys a subtle message, but at the same time it could be seen as just an arbitrary social rule -- we probably overestimate the import of these things.
Re #2, this is a difficult one as a general question -- teaching kids what you want the rules to be instead of what they actually are has some drawbacks, if that makes it more difficult for them to navigate the society they'll be living in.
How do we know the two 1s aren't actually .6s that were just rounded 0 decimal places? Wouldn't 1+1=1 be a better answer in that case? Check your assumptions.
@glyph Pimp your fictional characters all you want, but the symmetry of the gifts is too perfect -- no one's gonna convince me that that's not exactly what McCarthy had in mind.
When I dream about winning the lottery, my dreams have more to do with what I wouldn't have to do anymore (and perhaps what I'd say to the boss) than with what I would do with my time instead. As pleasant as the dream is, I'm afraid that if it came true, I might end up being quite a useless person -- most of my productivity is driven by necessity.
Like many in my generation, I can still recite the preamble to the constitution from memory thanks to Schoolhouse Rock.
One day when she was in 9th grade, my daughter came in to the family room and asked me to help her study for her science test, at a time when I just happened to be holding a guitar. So a lot of definitions for her vocab words were turned into simple tunes that both of us still belt out once in a while.
I forget where, but I was just reading an article about prison gangs, and it made it sound like membership in one was pretty much required for survival. That last quote from Ed might've been entirely accurate, depending on what the gang options for white dudes were.
Thanks for the response. I forgot to mention that I think there's a reasonable argument for restrictions that's motivated by concern for the recipients rather than by control over one's own gift -- some not-insignificant percentage of recipients of government assistance would, if not otherwise constrained, spend too much money on unnecessary or even damaging things and end up hardly better off, or perhaps even worse off, than they would have been without the assistance.
I do see the argument for dignity, but while some folks would be better off with fewer constraints and more responsibility, others would do better with more paternalism.
I work at a small company that sells products and services to big companies. In the last year or two, we've had more than one client insist that we follow their employee screening requirements, including drug testing. Fortunately the boss has so far refused that one -- he's no fan of drug use, but he sees it as a completely unnecessary invasion of privacy. But I don't know how much longer we can escape it (most likely scenario is that a state that one of our clients is in decides to require it of all their vendors).
Re the food stamps, I'm curious -- why is "we don't trust you with straight cash, so we're going to allow this financial support to be used only for food" an acceptable amount of paternalism, but "we don't trust you to make wise food decisions, so we're going to allow this financial support to be used only for reasonably healthy food" unacceptable? Is it just a gut feeling or can you articulate a principle behind it?
I don't watch much TV, but I'm more likely to watch a show (streaming) than read a book these days. Besides what others have mentioned, one thing I've noticed is that it's easier to get past the boring/painful/annoying parts of a show than of a book -- the show keeps on going even if I check my email or look at IMDB to see what else these actors have been in or go to the kitchen to get a snack, whereas I make no progress in the book unless I keep making the effort to read the words. It's rather like how riding a bike can be easier than running, because on a bike you can occasionally coast, but on foot you need to keep flinging your legs out in front of you or you stop entirely. I have bookshelves full of books that I've abandoned 50 or 100 pages in due to this phenomenon.
I'm with Vikram -- this seems like a no-brainer. He wasn't convicted of possession with intent to commit a violent act, he was convicted for possession. Treating this as a "violent" felony because of supposed intent would be punishing him for something that was never established in court.
I think there's a valid argument to be made for "too much regulation" in some contexts -- regulation isn't free, and there's a point at which the sheer number of regulations can become unmanageable even if every individual item is sensible on its own.
But given that my paycheck comes largely from helping our clients deal with unmanageable federal regulations, I'm not going to complain about it too much.
@mad-rocket-scientist in the case of land use and zoning in particular, I suspect part of the reason this happens is that the property owner bears the full cost of the restrictions -- no skin off the inspector's nose (or the town's, the state's, etc.) if he's just effectively reduced the value of the owner's property by tens of thousands of dollars, and most of the time the neighbors probably prefer it that way (until it's their own turn to be denied).
Not sure you can generalize to all regulations in general, though -- where the regulated area is a particular industry, regulatory capture is probably more common than regulatory overreach.
So, I sometimes make what I (in my ignorance) call a "half sandwich" by spreading PB on one half of a slice of bread, jelly on the other half, and then folding it over. I'm willing to accept that this is not actually a "sandwich", but if it's not, then please let me know what to call it so I can respond accurately to any future diet-related questions.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Should Schools Teach Our Boys to Be Chivalrous?”
Hearing or seeing "they" in that context still makes me cringe a little, and so I generally avoid it one way or the other (either with s/he and such or by just composing the sentence differently), but I understand that it's a valid usage now. I do sort of wish we had a national language standards board that could make the pronouncement that it's 100% OK to do that and no one is allowed to think the less of you for it -- that might be enough to get me to feel comfortable using it myself.
"
I think there are a couple of different questions here:
1) Are our "chivalry-lite" cultural rules desirable in a society that generally aims for gender equality?
2) If not, is it better to teach kids the rules of society as it is (to the extent that these are the rules), or to teach them the rules as we'd like them to be?
Re #1, I'd just point out that I know a number of women who believe strongly in gender equality but who still expect to guys hold doors for them, especially their husband. I can certainly see the possibility that it conveys a subtle message, but at the same time it could be seen as just an arbitrary social rule -- we probably overestimate the import of these things.
Re #2, this is a difficult one as a general question -- teaching kids what you want the rules to be instead of what they actually are has some drawbacks, if that makes it more difficult for them to navigate the society they'll be living in.
On “Never Say Die: Why We Can’t Have Nice Things”
For reference.
On “Linky Friday #89: The Tick Edition”
@citizen so you're saying I was being too pedantic?
"
I think you mean too pedantic.
On “A Meathead Watches Gilmore Girls (“Pilot” and “The Lorelais First Day At Chilton”)”
How do we know the two 1s aren't actually .6s that were just rounded 0 decimal places? Wouldn't 1+1=1 be a better answer in that case? Check your assumptions.
On “Prudish Parisians”
@glyph Pimp your fictional characters all you want, but the symmetry of the gifts is too perfect -- no one's gonna convince me that that's not exactly what McCarthy had in mind.
"
@glyph , you're brilliant -- that's the connection! A giant, green buttplug -- I mean, whose else could it be?
On “Weekend!”
When I dream about winning the lottery, my dreams have more to do with what I wouldn't have to do anymore (and perhaps what I'd say to the boss) than with what I would do with my time instead. As pleasant as the dream is, I'm afraid that if it came true, I might end up being quite a useless person -- most of my productivity is driven by necessity.
On “Useful Music!”
Like many in my generation, I can still recite the preamble to the constitution from memory thanks to Schoolhouse Rock.
One day when she was in 9th grade, my daughter came in to the family room and asked me to help her study for her science test, at a time when I just happened to be holding a guitar. So a lot of definitions for her vocab words were turned into simple tunes that both of us still belt out once in a while.
On “Best Day Ever?”
The truth about x-ray vision
"
Maybe you could use your super intellect to figure out this problem.
"
Attempt to come to terms with the fact that everything I thought I knew about the difference between truth and fiction was utterly wrong.
On “Cooking with Nazis”
I forget where, but I was just reading an article about prison gangs, and it made it sound like membership in one was pretty much required for survival. That last quote from Ed might've been entirely accurate, depending on what the gang options for white dudes were.
On “Neoliberalism, My Way”
Thanks for the response. I forgot to mention that I think there's a reasonable argument for restrictions that's motivated by concern for the recipients rather than by control over one's own gift -- some not-insignificant percentage of recipients of government assistance would, if not otherwise constrained, spend too much money on unnecessary or even damaging things and end up hardly better off, or perhaps even worse off, than they would have been without the assistance.
I do see the argument for dignity, but while some folks would be better off with fewer constraints and more responsibility, others would do better with more paternalism.
"
I work at a small company that sells products and services to big companies. In the last year or two, we've had more than one client insist that we follow their employee screening requirements, including drug testing. Fortunately the boss has so far refused that one -- he's no fan of drug use, but he sees it as a completely unnecessary invasion of privacy. But I don't know how much longer we can escape it (most likely scenario is that a state that one of our clients is in decides to require it of all their vendors).
On “What’s On Your DVR?”
Thanks! I didn't deploy the analogy in order to claim victory in a debate, so hopefully Vikram will let this one pass.
On “Neoliberalism, My Way”
Re the food stamps, I'm curious -- why is "we don't trust you with straight cash, so we're going to allow this financial support to be used only for food" an acceptable amount of paternalism, but "we don't trust you to make wise food decisions, so we're going to allow this financial support to be used only for reasonably healthy food" unacceptable? Is it just a gut feeling or can you articulate a principle behind it?
On “What’s On Your DVR?”
I don't watch much TV, but I'm more likely to watch a show (streaming) than read a book these days. Besides what others have mentioned, one thing I've noticed is that it's easier to get past the boring/painful/annoying parts of a show than of a book -- the show keeps on going even if I check my email or look at IMDB to see what else these actors have been in or go to the kitchen to get a snack, whereas I make no progress in the book unless I keep making the effort to read the words. It's rather like how riding a bike can be easier than running, because on a bike you can occasionally coast, but on foot you need to keep flinging your legs out in front of you or you stop entirely. I have bookshelves full of books that I've abandoned 50 or 100 pages in due to this phenomenon.
On “First Monday 2014”
I'm with Vikram -- this seems like a no-brainer. He wasn't convicted of possession with intent to commit a violent act, he was convicted for possession. Treating this as a "violent" felony because of supposed intent would be punishing him for something that was never established in court.
On “The Bank of Wal-Mart?”
Don't be silly, no one would ever do that -- you go to the bar to celebrate the fact that you got through the whole day without a drink.
"
I think there's a valid argument to be made for "too much regulation" in some contexts -- regulation isn't free, and there's a point at which the sheer number of regulations can become unmanageable even if every individual item is sensible on its own.
But given that my paycheck comes largely from helping our clients deal with unmanageable federal regulations, I'm not going to complain about it too much.
"
@mad-rocket-scientist hmm, good point - they're not mutually exclusive, are they...
"
@mad-rocket-scientist in the case of land use and zoning in particular, I suspect part of the reason this happens is that the property owner bears the full cost of the restrictions -- no skin off the inspector's nose (or the town's, the state's, etc.) if he's just effectively reduced the value of the owner's property by tens of thousands of dollars, and most of the time the neighbors probably prefer it that way (until it's their own turn to be denied).
Not sure you can generalize to all regulations in general, though -- where the regulated area is a particular industry, regulatory capture is probably more common than regulatory overreach.
On “Question Answered”
So, I sometimes make what I (in my ignorance) call a "half sandwich" by spreading PB on one half of a slice of bread, jelly on the other half, and then folding it over. I'm willing to accept that this is not actually a "sandwich", but if it's not, then please let me know what to call it so I can respond accurately to any future diet-related questions.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.