Jump to content

Darklord Rooke

Backer
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4470

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    33

 Content Type 

Blog Comments posted by Darklord Rooke

    Mr Poltroon

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Mr Poltroon said:

    Please elaborate on why mindless praise is bad, keeping in mind that "mindless" inherently means that the person is in no way attempting to think critically. This goes for mindless bashing as well, except I perceive the latter as being capable of hurting people for very little reason and gain.
    And why can't mindless praise be ignored, much like bashing.

    From a creator's point of view, if they accept mindless criticism they'll be driven to improve their work even if they got no meaningful information from the criticism. If they accept mindless praise they'll be of the impression that they don't need to improve. Thus mindless praise leads to stagnation from a creator's point of view. Stagnation is bad, m'kay :P 

    From a consumer's point of view ... I don't see any ill effects from mindless praise or criticism really.

    Fred the Barber

    Posted

    28 minutes ago, Fred the Barber said:

    (I would probably always assume the former interpretation, not the latter, without some strong contextual evidence otherwise, and I would probably only find it not to be a somewhat odd utterance when coming on the heels of a request for help putting on a seatbelt.)

    Totally agree with CoolFred, I would go with the former, but I would ALWAYS change the "the" to a "your" - "put your seatbelt on yourself" here the redundancy is clearer which helps to promote meaning.

    But if the sentence promotes obfuscation it could always be reworded. The 2nd intepretation should be reworded to "put your seatbelt on". That should be a lot clearer. The 1st intrepretation, on the assumption it follows a plea for help, could be made clearer with something like - "No. You're a grown man, you can put on your own damn seatbelt." 

    Fred the Barber

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Fred the Barber said:

    I figured it went without saying, but sure, I've added a whole section devoted to the superiority of the serial comma, just for you. Plus there was a funny news story about it recently, so adding this section gives me a chance to share that.

    Boo! Tell everyone to omit it instead. The ensuing obfuscation it will sometimes cause will provide much amusement 

    Fred the Barber

    Posted

    Also there's really no reason you HAVE to have present tense in a past tense story, except for dialogue (and for internal dialogue if writing in the third person.) The aside you mentioned can easily be written in past tense:

    Last month I went to an amusement park with my girlfriend. I hadn’t slept the night before, so when we arrived I was already dead on my feet. We still managed to have a great time, though. They had great thrill rides, so we had a blast hopping from roller coaster to roller coaster, and we even hopped on some of the more cheesy rides like the merry-go-round and laughed our heads off about it. When night came we were so tired we both tumbled into bed and went right to sleep.

    EDIT: I also completely agree with you, I don't like how some VN translations mix their tenses xD If it were possible to give your blog entry 2 likes, I would :) 

    Fred the Barber

    Posted

    Quote

    "Hadn't been able to sleep" vs. "couldn't sleep."

    I know this is just an example, but for those times when you need it most people use some variation of "hadn't slept". Although there are times when you can use "couldn't sleep" - "It was 4 in the morning and Jack couldn't sleep" vs "Jack hadn't slept in days" vs "Jack hadn't slept in days and a bottle of sleeping pills and hours of whale songs hadn't helped etc etc"

    Past perfect is a bit of a drag, but there are ways to avoid it and ways to make it elegant. 

    Edited at such and such a time for reasons relating to cookies

    *anoyoruniyakusokushita

    Posted

    5 hours ago, Funnerific said:

    I feel like you're only looking at western cultures. There's no sign of marriage going away where I live, and I'm sure that's the case in many countries around the globe.

    The importance of marriage will decrease once societies hit a certain point. A certain point in terms of equality between the sexes, a certain point in terms of freedom and exposure to new ideas, and a certain point where Governments can provide security for its citizens. Then marriage will start to be seen as a lifestyle choice, instead of ‘we need to get married because the woman has no career prospects and the children need to support us into old age.’

    Even China has started to turn its back on marriage:

    Quote

    But young people follow their own mind. And while romance and coupledom are much endorsed by both men and women in their 20s and 30s, marriage as a legal institution is no longer a must.

    Growing up with more diverse values than previous generations, Chinese youth born in the 1980s and 1990s see options beyond the linear life path leading up to the baby carriage. Many prioritise work over partnership - either willingly or with reluctance.

    Government statistics also suggest that more than 85% of both male and female migrant workers – a third of whom are at marrying age – work more than 44 hours a week, which leaves them little time and energy to build relationships.

    Others are simply exploring alternative lifestyles – with or without a romantic partner. Cohabitation is increasingly commonplace. And thanks to affordable technology, casual sex is also easier to access than ever.

    Then, there’s the sea of books, films and television series that portray other ways to live. For young, professional Chinese urbanites who have access to modern entertainment, a cool, an enriched life can well be spouse-free.

    Gender disparity

    Young Chinese women are particularly vocal about the institution of marriage. An advertisement by cosmetic company SK-II, showing young women voicing their protest against parental and social pressure, for instance, went viral in China.

    It’s not that single women are uninterested in having a love life – many are actually keen to get married – but too much is at stake. In a country where gender equality has been stalling, if not deteriorating, over the past decade, women face enduring discrimination in education and the workplace.

    Unlike their counterparts in the developed world, Chinese women receive no effective protection from the law in case their marriage dissolves. Knowing that bleak career prospects and a non-existent safety net await them, these women have every reason not to trade their career or personal freedom for a wedding.

    Empowered urban Chinese women have a tough choice to make between intimacy and autonomy - but at least they still have a choice. Behind them are their rural sisters, who have much less control over their own fates.

    https://theconversation.com/chinas-marriage-rate-is-plummeting-and-its-because-of-gender-inequality-66027

    *anoyoruniyakusokushita

    Posted

    7 hours ago, *anoyoruniyakusokushita said:

    Well, I don't. The movies and shows you're referring to are probably niche ones, that don't have a stronger social effect like the mainstream ones do. Plus, love triangles are not poly relationships; after all the whole concept of a love triangle is deciding between two potential love interests. Rarely they choose the third option, which is the poly-friendly one.

    The concept of a love triangle is deciding between two potential love interests that you are already in a relationship with. They are not poly relationships, but they are relationships concerning love between more than 2 people. So while you're right on this point, you're still wrong with your original point that "You rarely see people dating with more than two partners at once in media either. It's not only marriage. If a person is in love with someone else, it's gotta be just that someone else." Don't know why you said 'more than 2 partners' then later qualified it to be 'just someone else', but lets take the essence of what this is all about - multiple partners. As I said before, you see it quite often provided you aren't just watching blokey action flicks. Friends, the most popular sitcom in the 90s and early 00s had Phoebe dating 2 guys at one point. Big Bang Theory, the most popular sitcom today had Raj dating 2 girls at some point. I really don't see how you've never seen it. Movies, shows, novels, it's not a rare phenomenon. 

    I can't help what you do or do not see, but it's a well known phenomena spawning many articles: https://www.theguardian.com/childrens-books-site/2015/feb/13/love-triangles-why-are-there-so-many-teen-fiction which cite many examples, like the very popular Twilight novels. A good number of novels in the romance genre have people in a relationship with more than 2 people at once. Guys fighting over girls. Girl friendships breaking up over a guy. Bandit, the movie with Bruce Willis, had the lady ending up IN a poly relationship with the 2 guys. An excellent and hilarious movie which unfortunately didn't do that well probably because society just doesn't want to see that stuff (I presume.)

    We are not bombarded with media that state love is only possible between 2 people, we are always bombarded with media that says marriage is only possible between two people and therefore you have to choose if you want to take that final step.

    *anoyoruniyakusokushita

    Posted

    8 minutes ago, Funyarinpa said:

    As humans, we need both words that describe both situations humans can find themselves in and words describing human actions and behavior. This is where words you deem offensive come in. "Blind", "deaf", "idiot", "stupid"- It is possible to use these words without insinuating or implying ANYTHING about disabled people. I generally make a point of apologizing if I have inadvertently offended someone, but there's a logical extreme to which you can take that philosophy; there's nothing to be offended about in the daily usage of such terms unless you happen to take issue with the fact that people can momentarily lose their sense of sight or hearing. 

    If we restrain ourselves in order to coddle people jumping at shadows, we stagnate the rational development of rational thought. There can be no compromise on the freedom of language (bar hate speech which these words are not), because any other way would lead to the dumbing down of thought. Not using words that indicate a circumstance of disability has no benefit unless you can't stand the fact that people can, and will, be reminded of their disabilities in daily life. 

    There's a reason why writers are advised NOT to be PC. It limits their ability to describe, and it limits their ability to tell and describe truths. There's lines I draw, and I refuse in any way to be limited in my language because people aren't happy with certain words. It's like when people frown at you for swearing, it's offensive to some people but it didn't stop anybody from actually saying them.

×
×
  • Create New...