Story Friday November 18, 2016

[Pharaoh RutinTutin 1,586]

I just realized that what is happening to Tensaided is a cautionary tale illustrating the old adage, "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished".

[Tom Sewell 268]

It occurs to me that old geezers would be the core customers of Tensaided's video store because a lot them can't figure out how to use Netflix.

Of course, their grandkids do know. They're probably watching R-rated stuff even as their grandparents look for age-appropriate videos.

[TehEpicDuckeh 3]

 

4 hours ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

I'm So Meta, Even This Acronym

Hello there fellow xkcd reader!

[mlooney 3,417]

4 hours ago, TehEpicDuckeh said:

 

Hello there fellow xkcd reader!

I suspect that is a majority of the members of this forum.

[The Old Hack 2,448]

4 hours ago, Tom Sewell said:

It occurs to me that old geezers would be the core customers of Tensaided's video store because a lot them can't figure out how to use Netflix.

Well, to be fair to Dan's universe, its time setting is nebulous and uncertain both as far as date and technology go. It is a little amusing how the series in the space of in-story months have advanced from land line phones through mobile phones with rather expensive SMS plans to smartphones. But if we can swallow that, we can probably also swallow a video store surviving past the heyday of its medium.

[Scotty 1,061]

28 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

Well, to be fair to Dan's universe, its time setting is nebulous and uncertain both as far as date and technology go. It is a little amusing how the series in the space of in-story months have advanced from land line phones through mobile phones with rather expensive SMS plans to smartphones. But if we can swallow that, we can probably also swallow a video store surviving past the heyday of its medium.

Well as I said in the NP thread, there is a chain of "Family Video" stores that still exists so it is quite plausible, we're just not sure if Tensaided's store would be part of a chain or just the one store he owns.

I will say to the comment of old geezers and netflix though, a couple week ago I got a call from someone asking for help in setting up an on demand streaming service (it wasn't netflix but it was similar), my grandmother had recommended me since I always fix their computer.  I'll tell you, I had never set up a streaming service before, nor had I ever used an iPad so it took me a while to figure things out, but I managed, the tiny keyboard/remote control didn't help much with my large fingers though. I'm just 37, so I think it's more like people get set in a zone where they're comfortable with and don't want to budge, like with me, I'm a PC person, PC's haven't changed too much in terms of hardware since "plug-n-play" became the standard. The geezers would be from a time when VHS was much more common and so they'd be used to that, even if they still couldn't figure out how to set the clocks on those.

[Pharaoh RutinTutin 1,586]

6 hours ago, TehEpicDuckeh said:

Hello there fellow xkcd reader

Strangely, I read this on another website* before I saw it on XKCD.
It is possible the person who posted it there read it on XKCD first.

*^{Probably something about word games.  Acronyms, Palindromes, and Anagrams fascinate me unnaturally.}

[CritterKeeper 1,102]

17 hours ago, Cpt. Obvious said:

Pee-Wee's Big Adventure isn't much better. A movie about a creepy retard who is played by a sex offender! Think of the Children!

Sorry I'm a bit behind, but please don't use that word.  Like the n-word, there is no context in which it is not perjorative and offensive.  The r-word has no place in any discussion, really, but I'm saddened to see it here of all places.

[The Old Hack 2,448]

3 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

Sorry I'm a bit behind, but please don't use that word.  Like the n-word, there is no context in which it is not perjorative and offensive.  The r-word has no place in any discussion, really, but I'm saddened to see it here of all places.

The Moderator: CritterKeeper is correct. Please don't use that word here. Strive to be as civil as possible during discussion here. Good intentions count for much but they cannot cover it all.

[mlooney 3,417]

7 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

Sorry I'm a bit behind, but please don't use that word.  Like the n-word, there is no context in which it is not perjorative and offensive.  The r-word has no place in any discussion, really, but I'm saddened to see it here of all places.

 

4 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

The Moderator: CritterKeeper is correct. Please don't use that word here. Strive to be as civil as possible during discussion here. Good intentions count for much but they cannot cover it all.

Is "They fit a 318.2 diagnosis" or "They code as F72" off limits as well? 

[hkmaly 490]

15 hours ago, Tom Sewell said:

Of course, their grandkids do know. They're probably watching R-rated stuff even as their grandparents look for age-appropriate videos.

That's probably the reason they send them to look.

 

[The Old Hack 2,448]

30 minutes ago, mlooney said:

 

Is "They fit a 318.2 diagnosis" or "They code as F72" off limits as well? 

The Moderator: I'll give a brief discussion of the problem here and will later on make a longer post discussing the issues in a separate thread. The issues will be up for good-faith debate there.

In general, it is a bad thing to call someone 'crazy', 'retarded', 'mentally ill' and the like simply because it carries too far ranging implications. As an example, criminals such as mass shooters are often dismissed as 'crazy' or 'mentally ill.' One problem is that such language tars the subject with far too wide a brush. There are many mentally ill people who suffers from illnesses that, while impairing, nonetheless do not make them prone to take up a gun and commit spree killings. In fact, I am one such. I suffer from clinical depression and anxiety disorder. However, neither condition impels me towards violence. In spite of this, referring to shooters as 'mentally ill' nonetheless conflates me and several other friends of mine with such criminals. This is not merely unfair but also dangerously inaccurate as it causes fear of and distrust against a large number of harmless or even vulnerable people. A similar misuse might be to refer to hit-and-run drivers as 'motorists' -- they might fit into the category but it would be massively unfair to the very large majority of innocuous drivers on roads across the world.¹

In short, it's safer and politer just not to impute people you don't like with mental illness. There are numerous ways to express dislike that do not implicate vulnerable and innocent groups of people. In fact, it can be a good creative exercise to try to come up with some new and different ones.

¹(With the possible exception of rush hour drivers in central Copenhagen. Pedestrians take their lives in their hands near these.)

[hkmaly 490]

34 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

In general, it is a bad thing to call someone 'crazy', 'retarded', 'mentally ill' and the like simply because it carries too far ranging implications. As an example, criminals such as mass shooters are often dismissed as 'crazy' or 'mentally ill.'

Pee-Wee's Big Adventure might not be good example, but would it be possible to use words like that to describe main characters in other movies, like Dumb and Dumber or Forrest Gump?

[The Old Hack 2,448]

5 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Pee-Wee's Big Adventure might not be good example, but would it be possible to use words like that to describe main characters in other movies, like Dumb and Dumber or Forrest Gump?

The Moderator: Please reserve any debate for the upcoming discussion thread. I will attempt to clarify the reasons for forum policy there.

[Cpt. Obvious 73]

12 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

Sorry I'm a bit behind, but please don't use that word.  Like the n-word, there is no context in which it is not perjorative and offensive.  The r-word has no place in any discussion, really, but I'm saddened to see it here of all places.

I'm sorry. That post is not my proudest achievement. Now I'm debating if I should edit the post and change the wording, add an apology and explanation to the post, or just leave it as is to serve as an example of what not to post. It might be best if those with an opinion send me a PM instead of continuing the discussion in this thread.
 

[ijuin 572]

My understanding was that Capt. Obvious was not condoning the pejorative usage of such terminology, but rather was mocking those who do condone it.

As for terms denoting insanity, how should one describe someone whose actions are so far beyond the pale as to not conceivably be the product of a sane mind?

[mlooney 3,417]

5 hours ago, mlooney said:

Is "They fit a 318.2 diagnosis" or "They code as F72" off limits as well? 

Just for the record F72 is the clinical/billing code way of saying

Severe intellectual disabilities
Applicable To

• IQ 20-25 to 35-40
• Severe mental subnormality

Cut and pasted from here

It's not "mental illness" it's the clinical version of the r word.

 

[The Old Hack 2,448]

56 minutes ago, ijuin said:

My understanding was that Capt. Obvious was not condoning the pejorative usage of such terminology, but rather was mocking those who do condone it.

As for terms denoting insanity, how should one describe someone whose actions are so far beyond the pale as to not conceivably be the product of a sane mind?

 

41 minutes ago, mlooney said:

Just for the record F72 is the clinical/billing code way of saying

Severe intellectual disabilities
Applicable To

• IQ 20-25 to 35-40
• Severe mental subnormality

Cut and pasted from here

It's not "mental illness" it's the clinical version of the r word.

 

Remember that in both above cases, either insanity or a low artificial measure of intelligence may once again be tarring with too wide a brush. (Come to think of it, the societal measure of 'sanity' is artificial, too. It is not too long ago that homosexuality was judged a form of insanity.) Let us say that one is outraged by some particular politician. By implying that the politician in question is of low intelligence or questionable sanity, one is also effectively saying that ALL others who fail to live up to society's not always reasonable standards of intelligence or sanity are similarly worthy of scorn and contempt.

Instead, one might call said politician 'corrupt', 'heedless', 'uncaring', 'vile', 'driven by greed and malice', 'narrow-minded' or even 'a contemptible and disgusting heap of mouldering taurine refuse that spreads its repellent and poisonous fumes everywhere it happens to leave its trail of slime in its heedless search for adulation and self-affirmation' and not have implicated anyone innocent at all, with the possible exception of perfectly innocuous bulls who after all cannot help what they produce from their rear ends.

[The Old Hack 2,448]

Back to the movies. As far as innocuous movies go, isn't there something like sequences of kittens and puppies playing with one another around? I am not saying that it would be impossible to find someone who wouldn't be offended by that, you probably could, but at least this would be in the category of 'most likely to just be ignored and outvoted by everybody else.' Also, the age factor might not be as important. I would watch the crap out of a movie like that, at least.

Then again, I have often been called a big kid.

[ijuin 572]

I was not thinking of people who are malicious so much as ones who seem completely delusional, perhaps even hallucinating, as in "imagining voices/spirits/whatever telling them to do it", or "mistaking the neighbor's cat for a demonic entity", and then committing a violent action based on such delusions. Someone whose thought processes appear to be completely non sequiter.

Sane but malicious: Shooting the mailman because you think he slept with your daughter.

Deluded: Shooting the mailman because you think that he is an invading extraterrestrial.

[hkmaly 490]

21 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

Back to the movies. As far as innocuous movies go, isn't there something like sequences of kittens and puppies playing with one another around? I am not saying that it would be impossible to find someone who wouldn't be offended by that, you probably could, but at least this would be in the category of 'most likely to just be ignored and outvoted by everybody else.' Also, the age factor might not be as important. I would watch the crap out of a movie like that, at least.

Well, most of youtube?

Problem is that while it's really hard to find anything offensive on kittens playing itself, most people who make movies have ambitions and usually fail to resist temptation to "improve" it in some way. I remember short movie about bears (cubs) which would probably be safe without sound, but I did feel offended when I turned on the sound with commentary.

29 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

Instead, one might call said politician 'corrupt', 'heedless', 'uncaring', 'vile', 'driven by greed and malice', 'narrow-minded' or even 'a contemptible and disgusting heap of mouldering taurine refuse that spreads its repellent and poisonous fumes everywhere it happens to leave its trail of slime in its heedless search for adulation and self-affirmation' and not have implicated anyone innocent at all, with the possible exception of perfectly innocuous bulls who after all cannot help what they produce from their rear ends.

I completely agree that we shouldn't be using r-word or similar descriptions for politicians. Especially considering that more intelligent politicians of this sort are usually more dangerous, as their greed and malice can get them further than the less intelligent ones. Also, I suspect that lot of politicians pretend to be less intelligent that they are, either to appeal to broader spectrum of voters or so they can later label their policies "mistakes" instead of admitting they planned that.

That, however, isn't general answer on usage of those words, nor answers my question about Forest Gump.

[tuoteg 6]

12 minutes ago, ijuin said:

I was not thinking of people who are malicious so much as ones who seem completely delusional, perhaps even hallucinating, as in "imagining voices/spirits/whatever telling them to do it", or "mistaking the neighbor's cat for a demonic entity", and then committing a violent action based on such delusions. Someone whose thought processes appear to be completely non sequiter.

Sane but malicious: Shooting the mailman because you think he slept with your daughter.

Deluded: Shooting the mailman because you think that he is an invading extraterrestrial.

Recently our mailperson has been giving our chihuahua treats if he happens to  be outside when she comes around to deliver the mail. if mailpeople are so prone to getting shot at, I'm wondering if I should worry about my mailperson's motive for giving my dog those treats.

[hkmaly 490]

21 minutes ago, ijuin said:

I was not thinking of people who are malicious so much as ones who seem completely delusional, perhaps even hallucinating, as in "imagining voices/spirits/whatever telling them to do it", or "mistaking the neighbor's cat for a demonic entity", and then committing a violent action based on such delusions. Someone whose thought processes appear to be completely non sequiter.

Like Joan of Arc?

3 minutes ago, tuoteg said:

21 minutes ago, ijuin said:

Sane but malicious: Shooting the mailman because you think he slept with your daughter.

Deluded: Shooting the mailman because you think that he is an invading extraterrestrial.

Recently our mailperson has been giving our chihuahua treats if he happens to  be outside when she comes around to deliver the mail. if mailpeople are so prone to getting shot at, I'm wondering if I should worry about my mailperson's motive for giving my dog those treats.

I would say that mailpersons are more likely to be chased by dogs than shoot at, so the mailperson is probably hoping that if she gives your chihuahua treats he would be less likely to bit her legs.

[The Old Hack 2,448]

17 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

That, however, isn't general answer on usage of those words, nor answers my question about Forest Gump.

The Moderator: That is because I stated I would take it up in a separate thread elsewhere when I have had the time to create the initial post. Please drop the topic for now, it is not appropriate for this thread.

[ijuin 572]

Getting back to the topic of "appropriate content" for the movies, it's quite likely that movies for children from back when these grandparents were themselves six years old would be more acceptable than newer stuff. Of course, there could also be a grandparent or two among that group who are offended at the content being TOO banal, and who want the kids to see action and adventure and whatnot.