BioGio

Probably. Honestly, though, the phrase "another day, another ___" is ubiquitous, to the point that they probably chose "dungeon" for the alliteration.

So, yesterday I ended up not seeing The Master and instead going to Trouble with the Curve with two friends. I naturally have plenty of opinions about it, but they've all been said better, more eloquently, more professionally, and more clearly elsewhere. See what Roger Ebert or somebody thinks if you'd like to hear whether it's any good. See, the thing is, there's one major aspect of that movie that still stands out to me above all the others. The "I am your father" of Trouble, if you will. I could tell you that Amy Adams delivered a great performance, but I only recall a couple of lines. I could tell you about how forced parts of the romantic sub-plot felt at first, but that was corrected quickly. I could tell you that Justin Timberlake was played his character endearingly, but I don't recall much about it. I could tell you that it was a little bit too predictable, but that could be said for anything. I could tell you that the ending was rushed to perfectly happy endings, but I didn't mind it for the most part. I could tell you it was memorable overall, but that wouldn't fit the theme of this entry. No, what resonates most about Trouble is the fact that, at one glorious moment which may be the greatest second of cinematic history, Clint Eastwood yells, for the second time this month, at a chair. It was rather spectacular: We had just finished talking about Eastwood's RNC chair-rant, when, only an hour into the movie, he replicates it. What a stroke of pure serendipity. Seriously, though, it was a pretty good movie, well-acted but occasionally a bit too perfect.

Yes, she says it, but the phrase "another day, another dungeon" predates the show by decades. Currently, the first Google result for the phrase is the title of a parody of genre fantasy, a novel by Greg Costikyan. And I'm certain that the phrase predates him, as well, although it may not have been used in print prior to the publication.

That episode was pretty good. Definitely liked the Doctor/Amy/Rory relationship, which was pretty well developed. I will admit, when Rory first went off to the hospital, I assumed that it was just to get rid of him, but his sub-plot ended up pretty satisfying.

So, basically, they should just ignore it, right? Yeah, that's a good idea, until that "someone else" refuses to give gay people basic human rights (e.g., marriage). And anyway, not caring has never worked. If I say totally hurtful things about you, you're going to care. It's called having an emotional response, and it can't be controlled. Have you ever been berated for, I don't know, your weight, your height, a bad decision, or anything else? I am willing to bet that you felt bad about that. You can't control it. Now, as for your other point: If you do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING while harboring these views, then no one will ever need to know. It's true: no one will care. If you are TOTALLY SILENT in EVERY CASE in which the topic of homosexuality comes up, there is no problem. But it doesn't take much to make a problem. Just by saying, "I think homosexuality is wrong," you have ALREADY treated them differently. You've singled them out, and you've insulted an aspect of their identities.

Denouncing an aspect of someone that they can't control is naturally going to have the result of creating a sense of shame. If you can't see that, you lack either: 1) the empathy necessary to broach a topic like this respectfully, or 2) the willingness/ability to look into and understand the connotations of what you're saying--like Gato said, "it's what your words are implying."

I know! Just the other day, I was reading Family Circus, and I was really offended by the total lack of abortion jokes. Then I read this entry, and I was again offended by the lack of any citation of the source from which the entry's language is derived. (Said source includes the above joke about Family Circus.) EDIT: It is also offensive that you edited your entry so that it looks like I'm wrong about the entry's text coming from an SMBC comic. You're really victimizing me, here. Seriously, man.

The reason why you're having so much difficulty understanding is simple. This isn't a matter of "disagreement." It's not a simple difference of opinion. It's a matter of one side saying that a fundamental aspect of a person's identity and personality is somehow wrong. Here's how a disagreement works: >A: I think that The Avengers was a great movie. It was humorous and had great action scenes. >B: I found it overrated. The introductions were tedious and the third act was far too long. OR >A: It would be a good idea to use more bio-fuel. That could save the planet. >B: On the contrary, that could have negative economic effects. Do you see how one side starts off by saying something that they personally believe? And then the other side counters that. It's all good and actually is vital to, well, all communication, for one. Compare that with disapproval, which looks more like this: >A: *Is The Avengers* >B: I don't like the pacing. See, this isn't disagreement. And, you know, it's just fine to disapprove. Of movies. Or books, or TV, or a belief system, and so on. But it's never acceptable to disapprove of a person or any of the basic, fundamental aspects of that person. Because that form of disapproval has another name: discrimination. That looks most like this: >A: *Is a ___* >B: I don't approve of your nature and you shouldn't be a ___. Substitute in any fundamental, unchangeable aspect of a person's identity and being (e.g., race, sexuality, gender, height, whatever else) but nothing learned (i.e., any belief system). And, yes, sexuality is immutable. Here's how DeeVee put it in Kohaku's most recent blog entry:

Etymology is really a lot of fun. For instance, "knight" derives from a German word (Knecht) that actually means "servant." The derivation isn't quite as transparent here, since the word isn't borrowed directly from German. Like you said, languages change. (And that fact is really just as technical as any other point.) Oh, and one more thing, it might be helpful to note that "homophobia" was a term coined rather recently (circa 1970), which I suppose distances it from its root meaning. So at no point was "homophobia" regularly used (at least in the English language) to mean "fear of the same."* *In all fairness, it briefly was equivalent to "androphobia" in the 1920s. But I don't think any English author has used "homophobia" to mean "fear of the same."

I came in expecting some joke about Baywatch: you know, something like a turtle all dressed up as a lifeguard. But this was probably more amusing.

Your retainers made you gag? What kind of contraptions are they putting into your mouths? Seriously, mine only covers the majority of my hard palate; it's never made me gag.

Have you ever had a dream that you um you had you you would you could you do you want you you could do so you do you could you you wanted him to do you so much you could do anything?

IV? Maybe he doesn't need food, though, on account of being mostly a machine.

The other day, I met this man who opposed integration of schools. I know, it seems like that's an old topic, but that was really his belief. Now, I could have argued with him--said that his views were belittling, pointed to evidence that segregation is a detriment on society, told him to look at it from the perspective of a black child told his worse that whites, and the like--or I could have said, "You're entitled to that opinion." Which would you do? Would you listen as this man claims that there is a correlation between IQ and race, or would you call him on his hateful lies? Oh, he claimed not to be a racist, but it was clear that he was. What other sort of person would deny the rights of a specific group of people to receive an education? A little further back in time, a friend of mine declared his belief that homosexuality is a "sin" (not his word, one used earlier in this thread) and can be cured. I know, it seems ridiculous, but that really was his belief. Now, I could have argued with him--said that views were belittling, pointed to evidence that homosexuality cannot be changed, told him to see this from the point of view of a man who simply loves another man and can't help it, and the like--or I could have said, "You're entitled to that opinion." Which would you do? Would you accept his claims that a certain sexuality is unnatural, or would you call him on his hateful lies? Oh, he claimed not to be a homophobe, but it was clear that he was. What other sort of person would deny the rights of a specific group of people to find love? Oh, but maybe these aren't the best examples. Here's one that more directly addresses the notion of seeing acts as evil. A while back, there were plans to build a mosque near the site of the World Trade Center--and, moreover, there was a national debate about it. Well, that debate came to a class I was attending on the First Amendment. The class was pretty quick to break up into two distinct factions. At one point, someone made a particularly audacious claim that still rings in my ears: "If they open up a mosque, they can just train more terrorists." I stared at the man, shocked. Beside me sat a Muslim woman, who kept silent for the rest of the class period. He didn't hate Muslims in particular, as he repeatedly announced when confronted on the issue. After all, had you seen him attack or insult the Muslim woman in the class? (Well, no...) And isn't it acceptable to not accept a specific religion? (Well, yes, everyone disagrees with any religion that they don't believe in...) Besides, it's not like there's anything wrong with the people themselves. It's their religion that's wrong, their religion that promotes violence (supposedly). And I agreed for a moment. The idea that we can disagree with an action or a belief made sense. I mean, how else could anyone have a discussion that wasn't entirely ad hominem attacks? Right? But then I came back to reality. Sitting across the room from me was a man who had just made a baseless attack on an entire religion by insinuating that its followers supported terrorism. That wasn't right! No, he didn't hate Muslims (so he said); he hated Islam and the act of practicing it. But his reasoning was completely unfounded in reality. And so is the hatred, "disapproval," or whatever-you'll-call-it-next of homosexuality. Being brought up in a culture that refuses to accept gay people is no excuse for degrading others. Neither is being brought up in a culture that is suspicious of Islam any excuse for saying Muslims are terrorists. If someone told you that black people were inferior to white people, how would you respond? I am absolutely certain that any decent person would say, "That's plain racist and inexcusable." But, apparently, we're supposed to say, "Whatever." Are you willing to respect hate speech? How does this acceptance solve any problem? And if someone argued against the integration of public schools (say, on the basis that crime rates are higher for black people than white people), would you respect him? Maybe this guy isn't "straight-up racist," maybe he's just "anti-integration." But the fact is, there's no difference--just like there's no difference between "anti-homosexuality" and homophobia.

Pale Fire by Vladimir Vladimirovich Nabokov: It's one of very few genuinely meaningful books (i.e., having a purpose other than comedy) to actually make me laugh out loud, which puts it in the ranks occupied by Candide and some of Jonathan Swift's essays. Moreover, the whole structure and multiple narratives are brilliant. I'll have to reread the book some time with more of an emphasis on determining whether Charles Kinbote is a real person; this time, I mostly read it as a satire of academia and the idea of the "death of the author."

Hmm. Xaeraz, BZP either just learned your political leanings or that you don't know about Canadian politics. Also Iceland is awful don't go there.

Update! (one of the first ones I've caught shortly after it happened, actually)Seriously, this is probably the most important revelation in all of Homestuck.~ BioGio

We've got to protect the children from sax and violins! (i am so sorry for that)

September is actually the most common birthmonth, the 16th of September being the most common birthday. Perhaps we should subtract nine months from that to see why. (Or we could all just ignore the implications here.)

October 20th, 1934: Over the past week, the attempts on my life have become more audacious, culminating in yesterday's bombing on the train. My heirs are both dead, and I fear for the sanctity of a nation without our ancient, royal guidance. The castle has become a prison, I have been betrayed, so much like poor [covered by drop of blood] Myshkin, by my very own people. And even now I can hear them coming, footsteps on the stairwell, a relentless pursuit. They haunt my dreams; I do not even know when I merely imagine them, and when they are truly here. They are always here, already here. I shall die within the week, this much I know: I must face my death nobly, and accept the injustice of God and thes [pen's ink trails off here, remainder of the page covered by blood] (God this is overdone.)

(in white, to avoid spoiling the joke) Yo. Low. YOLO

Is anybody else having difficulty loading the latest page?

D&D, guys. Rolling to point is brilliantly funny and should be added to the rule books today.

In the rainbow Minecraft Farm, Where your fears and horrors come true. In the rainbow Minecraft Fram, Where not a single sheep gets through. EDIT: I actually got ninja'd on a joke. Wow.