Posted Jan 3, 2005
I've been thinking about this journal entry for a few days, and haven't had a chance to post it until today. Also, this'll mention a certain friend from real life, and I'm at once hoping he won't see it, hoping he will see it, and thinking of pointing him toward it while not really telling him to read it. Anyway...
I have a big problem with some of the ways teenagers in the US use certain words, largely the multiple and excessive uses of the word 'like'. The most irritating is using it as 'filler' whilst talking instead of pauses, as if the speaker is afraid that if a steady stream of speech is not kept up, the listener is liable to interrupt. Unfortunately, this may well be true. However, this is not what I want to talk about.
The second most annoying use of 'like' is using it to mean, often in the same sentence, either to like someone as a friend, or to have a crush on them. This creates a good deal of confusion, particularly when one has a crush on a friend. For example, this exchange occured between me and a male friend:
Me: *friend* thinks you like me.
Him: Of course I like you!
Me: Not like as a friend, like as in have a crush on. (Or something to that effect.)
Him: Of course I don't like you!
See how confusing it can get? Now, this may seem irrelevant to the subject of this 'rant', which is 'love'. It isn't.
While 'like' has suffered incurable ambiguity of meaning, there is one word which has suffered an intensifying of meaning, frustratingly so. That word is 'love'.
Less than a century ago, the word 'love' could be acceptably used to mean a very powerful sense of friendship, such as the friendship between Frodo Baggins and Samwise Gamgee. could also mean familial love, or love as in 'true love', whether said love was true or not. Both of these meanings are still valid. However, the first meaning is now far too easily warped (though I could have a slightly biased opinion on the subject, having done osme of said warping myself... ). There is one other potential meaning, and that would be a feeling greater than 'like', yet lesser than 'true love', in varying degrees of greater and lesser. This meaning seems to be valid, but the meaning of the word itself has been intensified so I, at least, would not feel comfortable using it in that last sense, even if it were applicable. (Which it might be... ) This is extremely frustrating.
I suppose this was just a pointless rant, with no real conclusion, but I end with one question: For those of you who have read this far, can you find a word to describe that feeling greater than 'like' but lesser than 'love'?
PS Instantly assuming that a boy who is a friend of a girl is a boyfriend is extremely annoying, and I very much hope no one ever makes that assumption about one of my friends, as I tend to get along better with boys than with girls.
More anti-gay marriage legislation
Posted Dec 3, 2004
Michigan has decided that contracts for state employees won't include domestic partner benefits as was originally planned.
This is because a proposal was recently passed banning gay marriage and 'civil unions' within the state of Michigan. The governer had opposed this amendment to the state constitution, but it passed the voters with a 58.6 percent vote.
The courts are still deciding if it can pass completely, I think.
Now, this amendment doesn't only affect gay partners. It also affects unmarried straight couples, preventing them from sharing benefits as well. Apparently, though, proponents claimed it only affected marriage, not domestic benefits. Now I have to go find an article in favor of this irritating roadblock.
Well, I haven't found one yet, but I did find one saying that ten other states, not including Michigan, passed proposals defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, nothing else. In addition, these proposals also deny benefits such as hospital visitation rights. This applies to /all/ unmarried couples; there is no longer, in these states, a 'common law marriage' and all the associated benefits.
Many people voted for these proposals because of religious or personal beliefs. They are perfectly within their rights to do so, but they have /no/ right to dictate how other people live their lives. /No one/ should have that right in the United States, 'the land of the free', nor should anyone have that right anywhere else.
Same-sex marriages will not affect, or should not affect, opposite-sex marriages. A man who loves another man, a woman who loves another woman, neither of them take away anyone's rights. No one is entitled to a life free of offense. No one has a basic right to never being offended. Everyone, at some point or another, will be offended by something someone else does. If some action offends them, that does not mean they then have a perfect legal right to ensure that offensive action never happens again. The fact that millions of people /were/ granted this right is just wrong.
I'm not against this proposal because it affects me personally; I'm against it because it violates my sense of justic, because I believe that it is wrong to take away someone's right to pursue happiness (a Core Democratic Value, like they always make you use in essays for standardized tests in the US) - if I believed in mortal sin, I would believe that to take away someone's right to happiness, their right to equal treatment, would be a mortal sin.
There are no laws treating people with dark skin worse than people with light skin here; there are no laws treating women worse than men. Why must there be laws treating homosexuals worse than heterosexuals? Why why why? Because prejudice is eternal? I can believe that; I'm not completely unprejudiced. There are humans whom I judge a bit harshly, don't give them a chance. But it's not based on skin color, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, anything like that. However, I'm not going to tell you what it is, because I'd prefer my prejudice to remain private.
Thank you for being patient with me and my rants. I only hope other people can see my side.
Posted Nov 28, 2004
Oh my. Remember these things? A 10-hour car ride concentrates the thinking wonderfully. Well, I was just thinking that going out of your way to be as inoffensive as possible is just silly. I mean, why not just not deliberately insult anyone, and do your very best to make amends when you slip up? I mean, political correct titles, such as "vertically-challenged," just sound silly. Especially if the people the labels are being applied to really don't mind whatever they were called before. Not that I'm saying no one is offended ever, but it's a possibility that names that sound offensive to outsiders really don't offend the recipients of said names. If a species of aliens came to Earth and they had never known prejudice of any sort, we would seem pretty darned silly to them, dancing out of the way of anything that could seem a tiny bit offensive. Take the use of the word "he" to mean "any human". This wouldn't be considered sexist if no one had said in the first place 'Hey, that's not fair!'. I think that just using 'he' as a generic term, as opposed to 'he/she' as a generic term, is much easier. Of course, it would really be easier to use 'it' or 'them,' but the latter is not proper grammar and the former has nonhuman connotations, which it wouldn't if no one considered it to imply non-humanity. What I'm getting at is that prejudice is stupid and trying to dance around and sound as unprejudiced as possible is even stupider, in many cases. Prejudice is stupid, but some of the methods of getting rid of it seem even stupider. Do I seem callous and inhumane here? I hope I don't. But, then, I've got no great pride in being female, or a member of the human species. I don't have any pride whatsoever in belonging to any kind of group. I belong to no religion that's established; though my family claims I'm Unitarian Universalist, I'm nothing of the sort. I'm not patriotic in any way; in fact I think the US could do with a good shaking up. I'm... weird. Can anyone help me explain it? I need a shrink.
And on that note, I end and wait for my friends to come to the rescue. And kill typos.
Nothing at all
Posted Aug 20, 2004
Okay.. I decided it's been more than long enough since I last did one of these things, so here goes.... The monitor is turned off, of course, so, yeah, you get the idea.
Coren: I am now officially a traitor to the Thingite cause! Hah! Hahaha! I win!
Esty: Ignore him, please do.
Coren: But I want all of hootoo to know of my glorious accomplishment!
Esty: And I don't want to get in trouble. So there.
Coren: But I'm obviously not you! You never say THURSDAY on a Thingite thread, do you? It's me who does it!
Esty: Shut up. Okay... My favorite musician is now officially Warren Zevon. Me likes him. Yeah. What to babble about...
Coren: My blasphemy?
Esty: NO! This is getting really pointless, you realize that? No, don't answer that. Good Omens is now my favorite book. I've read it two and a half times in two months or less. I ordered a copy for myself only yesterday. Whee! *victory dance* Gonna have my own copy! W00T!
Coren: Hehe. I like Crowley. He's cool. ven if he is a demon...
Esty: He's less devilish than you...
Coren: Well, yes, but who cares?
Esy: You certainly don't...
Esty: So, do you have anything besides your blasphemy to talk about?
Coren: Not at the moment, no.
Esy: So I suppose this journal entry is done, then. Time to kill typos.
Random thoughts, and slashing Sherlock Holmes
Posted Jul 30, 2004
This is being typed with no visual aids - the monitor is turned off. Well, of course the monitor is turned off; this won't work otherwise. My brother just asked-- is distracting me. I'll tell him what I'm doing after I'm done. He wanted to know what I was doing so I couldn't think of what to say, because I forgot what this was called, and apparently I said 'freep', so right now he's laughing about that and it's really annoying and he just stopped. I'm listening to Buffalo Springfield, but I'm not sure what the song is called. I'm not sure what I want to talk about, but then, I'm never sure, almost, except the first rant, when I think I knew what I was going to talk about when I started. That rant was on homosexuality and prejudice against. If you didn't know. It's on the past ramblings page, just like this one will be when I write another ramble. So. What do you want to talk about? Well, you can't tell me, can you? I gues I'll talk about slash. I can always talk about slash. I can connect slash to at least half of my life, give or take ten percent. So anyway. Some slashers are OTPists (One True Pairing). This means that they only really like one pairing in a particular fandom, and they feel those two people belong together. Now, I know of some Star Trek OTPists, but I personally am an OTPist when it comes to Sherlock Holmes. I feel that Watson and Holmes, or Sherlock and John, if you prefer (okay, I prefer, so sue me) belong together, Victorian laws and morals be damned. Oops. Didn't mean to swear, or rather, don't like to swear, but this is one of those instances where I have to swear to get my point across. So anyway. If one reads the canon, and one is a slasher, one begins to notice things. A touch on an arm here, a vaguely suggestive line there. I have decided to make a collection of slashy Holmes quotes, differences in meanings of words and so on taken into account. So, I will try to make sure that no one can say that I took a quote out of context or misinterpreted it purposefully, or did anything to it to make it slashy, but that it is, in fact, slashy in its own right and may have been considered so in Victorian times, though this is more unlikely. However, if I ever get this collection of quotes (and commentary from yours truly) up on this site or any other site, I absolutely promise that I will do nothing to change or purposefully change the meaning of the quotes. I seem to be less coherent than usual. Probably because I just went to karate and I'm tired, and it's sometime after 9 PM. So anyway. I am an OTPist for Sherlock Holmes, not only because there's hardly anyone to slash besides Lock and John, but because John is the only person who's gotten a deep display of real love and loyalty out of Holmes. Yes, I said love. But John said it first. Read The Adventure of the Three Garridebs if you don't believe me. If I had a resource at hand, I would put the quote here, but I do not, so I shall have to do that later, and put it on my front page and the quotes page after that. Okay, what to say now? Hmm. Well, I'm not sure if I have anything else I can say at the moment. Now, I'm sure that Conan Doyle meant to portray Holmes and Watson as having a sort of brotherly bond, but brotherly love between non-brothers can be interpreted slashily, much to the consternation of non-slashers. Gods... My brother distracted me again, so I'm just going to stop here. Vive le slash!
Estelendur (AKA Esty)