A few years back I decided to finally learn correct cursive so I was able to sign my name to documents correctly. When I discovered there were multiple types of cursive, I landed on Kurrent (the predecessor of Sütterlin) and now frequently sign my name with it to the general dissatisfaction of everyone in my life.
I'm sure there's some sort of point I'm making about the absurdity of a signature being used to verify anything (when the nice old lady volunteering at the polling station makes me sign again because it doesn't quite look like my signature even though I have photo ID and have arrived in person at the correct polling location I want to do a backflip, but I of course don't because I want to be nice to the old lady), but mostly it just makes me smile.
The polling place example makes me smile. I was once asked to re-sign six times. None of the six matched the reference. Then I was offered the option to just change the reference.
I asked if they would just accept the testimony of somebody who had known me since kindergarten. The pollsters on either side of the one "helping" me laughed and called me by my childhood nickname to say "no". Half of the people in the room had known me for most or all of my life.
But the lady in front of me didn't think my signature matched enough and wouldn't accept my state-issued tamper-proof photo ID. She did show me the reference signature and asked if I could imitate it. Or I could just change the reference signature.
Danish-style kurrent is the final boss of my genealogy research. There's a nice image on the Wikipedia page. Look at the a, e, o, r, s, v, æ and ø in lower case, and imagine that written by a Danish priest with early parkinson's and/or being drunk.
> now frequently sign my name with it to the general dissatisfaction of everyone in my life.
When I was a kid, I thought there was a special way to sign things, given how everyone's signatures looked like elaborate Lissajous curves. For awhile, once I had to start signing things, I took care to make sure my name was legible and consistent.
Then I realized I could just make a little wavy squiggle, and nobody cared. Eventually I realized that most signatures, I didn't even have to do a wavy squiggle - the credit card machines at stores would be perfectly happy to accept a straight line, or just a first initial, or a drawing of a kitty-cat.
A friend of my uncle used to sign his cheques "Mickey mouse"
My understanding is that under English law (probably inherited by the US) anything you intend to act as you signature is legally your signature. So the joke was on him, because his signature was Mickey Mouse.
This goes back to the days where people were illiterate and would sign by writing an X. But that was fine, because they only had to sign a handful of legal documents in their entire life and could remember each one.
For a time in the years around 2008 I would sign my credit card receipts "Ron Paul," which eventually resulted in a sternly-worded letter from Wells Fargo that carried no legal weight but did lead to me discontinuing the silly little campaign.
I don't want to be "that guy", but I often find myself as the "intolerable lib" in some situations and the "intolerable con" in others, so here we go:
There is a degree of quasi-political messaging in PBS children's shows. I can say this because I've watched more hours than I'd like of several of them, but I'd like to focus on on Molly Of Denali. It's a good children's show about an inuit girl who lives in Alaska and teaches children general good morals and specifics of inuit and Alaskan culture.
When I say it's political, I mean that it makes points without nuance on historical and current issues which range from widely accepted and important ideas (example: They didn't let Native Alaskan People vote in the past, so it's important to exercise the right to vote now), to what I would consider less widely agreed upon and important ideas, such as it being deeply upsetting and disrespectful for a "white" teacher to call a native child "T", because she had trouble pronouncing his native name. Another example is them introducing the importance of "land acknowledgements" in a children's show. A final example is the "clueless white" trope wherein the offensive rude white visitor has to be educated by the wise natives over and over and over.
I'm not trying to say that any of these examples are "right" or "wrong", but they do represent "politics" in the mind of wide sections of the population.
This said I like the show and of course we need to fund public broadcasting, I would just prefer if we did our best to keep the most controversial stuff for when the kids are a bit older to make it a smaller target for outrage (from the right or left).
The most jarring part, to me personally, is the drastic shift in tone and presentation for injustices with wildly different levels of impact. Perhaps rudely, I think to myself in the voice of the Inuit grandfather from the show "The white man took me from my family, did not allow me to speak my language, beat me and did not allow me to vote, and worst of all...... He did not let me smile in photos"
I don't mean any of this as racist or disrespectful and I hope this is a nuanced comment for consideration and not a kneeejerk reaction or evidence of my subconscious biases run wild.
> When I say it's political, I mean that it makes points without nuance on historical and current issues which range from widely accepted and important ideas [...] to what I would consider less widely agreed upon and important ideas
Another example of this: when Mr. Rogers invited an African American neighbor to share his pool. It certainly wasn't widely agreed upon at the time.
I understand and sympathize with the desire to directly equate every current social issue no matter how small with a social issue from the past as part of a larger "chain of social progress" because I think it originates with the desire to correct past injustices and treat everyone with respect and decency.
I disagree that this is a useful or accurate way to engage in discussion about an entirely different and specific subject in an entirely different context. The only way they are related is with this "chain of social progress" framework, and even within that framework, they are not the same issue.
I perceive it to be a dismissive approach which shuts down conversation, and I think it's clear when viewed plainly in the opposite direction: "If you have concerns with any of the political messaging in children's shows, you would not allow a person of a different race into your swimming pool", or in a slightly different way, "If you have concerns about this you are explicitly the "bad guy"".
> The only way they are related is with this "chain of social progress" framework, and even within that framework, they are not the same issue.
The way that they are related is that PBS childrens' shows deliberately address political content, and have done so for many years, and that is both important and good that they do so.
I agree with you generally, but the two points I want to make are that these shows are messaging politically (I know you agree with this, and I appreciate you saying so as many others in this thread do not agree), and that this political messaging is not inherently good in and of itself, and must be evaluated on a case by case basis, both for the "correctness" of the political messaging, and for potential concerns of alienating audiences when a specific case is included in a children's program.
> such as it being deeply upsetting and disrespectful for a "white" teacher to call a native child "T", because she had trouble pronouncing his native name.
Imagine not finding it disrespectful for your teacher to just completely ignore and disrespect your heritage and you're expected to just accept it and be totally OK with it.
IMO kids should be taught to be proud of their names. Apparently, that's a political stance.
I have many coworkers who I have trouble saying their names. I try as best as I can to say their names and be as respectful as possible. I wouldn't just go "I can't say your name, so you're just T now."
I agree that it's generally important to respect other people and other cultures, both ethically because it is a ethical thing to do, and practically because it helps us all "get along".
I find, if we strip this from the colonial context, or remove it from the racial context entirely (this is now a conversation between two Han Chinese people of the same social class, for example) there is some relationship between what I perceive to be an increasing focus on the critical importance of a child being called their exact name and no abbreviation, mispronunciation, standard nickname, or contextually assigned nickname, to be a symptom of an American hyper individualism and "rights culture".
As an aside I have been told by more than one person with a foreign name before even attempting their name that they would prefer I just call them an Americanized abbreviation of their name for convenience. Obviously I want to try to do what they would like, but if they were to insist on a name I struggled with, I would consider them to be a generally annoying person.
Wanting to be called your name and not liking having a person in a superior position arbitrarily rename you as an example of "American hyper individualism". Incredible.
It is literally someone over you stripping you of your own choice of identity.
Even if we removed the idea of teacher/student relationship from this, are you still fine with people just arbitrarily renaming you? That someone respects you so little they won't even respect your own choice in name, that's fine?
I'm absolutely fine with someone who has a name which could be difficult to pronounce in the local language choosing to go with another name. It is their choice. That's the big difference. They're choosing to go by that name in those contexts. It wasn't just arbitrarily chosen for them.
Counterpoint, when these episodes were first aired, these weren't viewed as political issues. Only in response to these ideas have they become politicized.
And since PBS has backed away from making episodes like these.
I might be missing what you mean, but I tried to explain as best as I could how I would understand these things to be "related to "politics" ".
Offensiveness of difficultly in pronouncing native Alaskan name - I believe this would be grouped under the umbrella of something like "linguistic imperialism" by people of particular political bents, which is an issue that at least heavily relates to politics.
Land acknowledgements - As far as I can tell, these have always been politicized because they originated "with indigenous Australian political movements and the arts" at least according to Wikipedia. I don't know much about the subject
Rude clueless white trope - I think this is to some extent a "positive" inversion of the "noble savage" trope, which Wikipedia tells me was historically political.
None of these things are inherently political unless you interpret them to be.
They have several shows that depict interracial marriages, while some people might try to take this as a political statement, most of us would not see it that way.
In a similar vein, I don't see how pronouncing names correctly could be a political issue.
I agree with you in that the question of something being "political" is inherently related to the context, and that some things some people might find political (like the importance of voting from my original comment) are not "political enough" to be something which shouldn't be in a children's show.
I would also agree with you that pronouncing names generally is not (and largely probably should not be) a political topic, but that it necessarily is in this context because of it being included in a show about native Alaskans. If the teacher were inuit, or the student also white, or it was presented a simple misunderstanding along the lines of "can I call you T" "No please don't" "okay sorry I'll do my best" it would not be "political". Because it's in this show in this context and explicitly connected to previous abuses of native people being made to use "white names", my contention is that the creators of the show intend for it to be political .
I appreciate the poetic response and think that the point I believe you're making: "people who are inclined to criticize anything which isn't exactly as they'd like it will never be pleased, so you can't spend all of your time trying to please them." is correct and useful generally.
Where I might disagree with you, if I understand you correctly, is in how applicable your comment is as a response to my mine. At the outset I attempted to communicate that some of the things that the most likely to be outraged people would take issue with (the importance of exercising the right to vote - especially if your ancestors didn't enjoy the right) are pretty universally accepted and even presenting it without nuance inside of a children's show is acceptable because it is done so with a positive focus (be involved in the democratic process).
>the importance of exercising the right to vote - especially if your ancestors didn't enjoy the right
So we shouldn't talk about the 19th Amendment[0] because it's no longer an issue because your mom, sister, wife and daughter are now allowed to vote? As such, we should actively stop talking about the fact that there was ~150 years of activism, protest and discussion before half the population was "allowed" to participate in the political life of the US?
Is that your contention? If not, claiming that we should ignore those same issues around the right of indigenous peoples to vote seems more than a little hypocritical.
Your thoughts on this would be appreciated. Thanks!
No sorry, I was including that example because it's something "political" that is also pretty universally accepted and uncontroversial, and as a consequence could only really upset the most upsetable. I meant it as a contrast to the other more controversial political topics that would require more consideration before putting into a children's show.
The original premise of the first comment I replied to was that PBS kids programming does not include political content, and I wanted to provide examples of two kinds of political content it included.
I don't in any way blame you for misunderstanding what I was trying to say, because I think a lot of people who read my comment did based on the negative point score (?) it ended up with. I think that we (and I include myself in this we) tend to jump past the specific content of a response, and only "hear" the tone of the response and presume intention from it. This isn't necessary an ineffective strategy online where there's a Tsunami of legitimately (from my perspective) evil positions (some of which I previously held and now am ashamed of, shout out God) and the odds are that a person (or bot or person working for an influence campaign) stating anything other than complete excited agreement is probably trying to convince people they should also hold a particular evil view.
The trouble is, this tends to kill nuanced conversation. I get it, I'd be furious if I thought the person I was replying to online was telling me they don't want me to be able to vote, but it's entirely possible that's not what they're saying.
Another example might be "How many Jewish people died in the Holocaust". If you asked me this I would answer, based on my limited knowledge "Somewhere between five and a half and six and a half million, probably closer to six.". I would do better socially if I simply said "like six million what a terrible tragedy", but my goal wouldn't be honesty it'd be social positioning. I understand that most people who don't instantly say "six million what a terrible tragedy" are doing so because they are trying to do an evil thing (Holocaust denial/revisionism), but that's not the only possible reason someone could do it.
>No sorry, I was including that example because it's something "political" that is also pretty universally accepted and uncontroversial, and as a consequence could only really upset the most upsetable. I meant it as a contrast to the other more controversial political topics that would require more consideration before putting into a children's show.
Fair enough. However, you didn't really (at least IMHO) make that much of a contrast, especially considering the "contrasting" example (a teacher misnaming their student because they can't even be bothered to try pronouncing their name properly). You've significantly clarified that in the comment to which I'm currently replying -- and thank you!
>I think that we (and I include myself in this we) tend to jump past the specific content of a response, and only "hear" the tone of the response and presume intention from it.
That said, the negative reaction to your comment[0] isn't all that surprising, given what appears to be the tone you've taken.
While the HN guidelines clearly state that one should try to see the comments of others in the best possible light (and I tried to do so -- which is why I asked about it), but there's a more universal idea: who you are -- at least as far as others are concerned -- is how you are perceived by those others.
I'm not saying you shouldn't be true to yourself and your principles. Rather the opposite. That said, it might not be a bad idea to try and see how others might perceive you based on what you write.
I am emphatically not telling you what to do here. Rather, I'm just pointing out that others likely don't see the decent, fair-minded person you consider yourself to be -- because all they have to go on is what's right in front of them.
I am personally extremely tired of seeing random misbehaved non service breeds in red amazon.com vests which say "service dog". It's entitled, disrespectful to the public, disrespectful to the rule of law, and disrespectful to individuals who legitimately require a service animal. I will loudly state "oh nice it's one of those fake service dogs" at the aquarium, you cannot stop me. I also loudly announce "No dogs on the walking path, thank you citizen" at the public park when people ignore posted signs. Every single square foot of our world is not a playground for the invasive species you keep exclusively for emotional and social benefits. My productive milk cow, on the other hand...
Most of the responses usually devolve into emotional ones, both from dog lovers and dog haters. As a dog owner I support common sense acceptable rules:
1. No dogs in stores that have fresh produce, dairy and meat
2. No off leash dogs in public areas except in dedicated off leash areas
3. No dogs in restaurants indoors
4. Severe penalties if you parade your unbehaved dog as a service dog
But at the same time, dog haters keep pushing it to the point where you cannot have dogs beyond the confines of your home (the home cannot be an apartment building). People don’t want dogs in apartments and they don’t want them in ANY public areas. The same people will also oppose dedicated dog parks or ensure these parks are extremely small.
Around half the households in the country have a dog. There needs to be a middle ground.
The problem is “dog” encompasses 20lb to 40lb poodles and shitzus and 60lb to 100lb pitbulls and Rottweilers that can be more dangerous than wild animals that we don’t allow in public.
And those with short fur that don’t shed a lot or are less allergenic and those with long fur that cover the whole space with their hairs.
My toddle has less rights to exist in a space outside their home compared to a dog capable of severely hurting them (and has many times in the past) specifically bred to be aggressive that does not let go after they bite.
This happened to my daughter in the first couple weeks of kindergarten. The class is supposed to line up outside in the morning before the teacher takes them into school, and some mom decided to bring their extremely large pitbull and park it 5 feet away from all the 5 year olds in line.
There was no chance this woman would have been able to control her dog, yet she had the right to keep a dangerous animal 5 feet away from my daughter. I told the school to take my daughter inside and keep her away or I was taking her home, and they had my daughter wait inside the office.
It makes no sense that any other large animal with similar characteristics as a large pitbull would have been disallowed, but because a pitbull falls under dog, it is allowed.
Breed and size are less predictive of danger than level of training. An 8 pound Chihuahua can do serious damage if it's badly trained. A properly trained Rottweiler is absolutely bomb-proof. It's certainly capable of more damage, but it won't.
Pit bulls are no more dangerous than any other breed. They have a bad reputation because they are popular among dog-fighters, but pit bulls (and pit mixes) make excellent pets -- so long as they are trained. And they're easier to deal with than many working breeds, who quickly become dangerously anxious if you don't give them a job. (Pits, by contrast, are mostly couch potatoes.)
All of that said... most dogs do not belong in public, at least in the US. (Some other countries have a longer tradition of dogs in public, and they routinely train their dogs to behave well.) That is even more important in enclosed spaces, where neither you nor the dog can put distance between you if there is a problem.
The upshot: find a training class, and take it. The class isn't training your dog; it's training you. You have to take it seriously and do the homework. The dog is not a machine to be programmed by somebody else.
>Breed and size are less predictive of danger than level of training. An 8 pound Chihuahua can do serious damage if it's badly trained. A properly trained Rottweiler is absolutely bomb-proof. It's certainly capable of more damage, but it won't.
Level of damage is a component of danger. I am not worried about the damage an 8lb chihuahua will do to my kid, that can most likely be healed, and most people can stop the attack without weapons.
I am worried that the only way I can save my kid from a pit bull or similar dog is with a knife or gun, and even then, the damage will be severe.
> Pit bulls are no more dangerous than any other breed. They have a bad reputation because they are popular among dog-fighters, but pit bulls (and pit mixes) make excellent pets -- so long as they are trained.
The same can be said of tigers and hyenas and lions and chimps and bears.
A lot of this seems uninformed projection of your own fears. Your toddler quite literally has more rights to exist in a space not your home than a dog. Unless you mean to say that as long as dogs exist in a public space, your child’s existence is threatened.
Untrained pitbulls can be dangerous, but did the dog display any aggression at any point? Or is the whole story just “a well trained dog was in the vicinity of children, presumably not off leash, and I did not like that because I fear for my children all the time”? And are you actually allergic to dog fur or are you more concerned about the fictional person who may be allergic to dog fur, but only to the fur from larger dogs? Because the reality of dog allergies is that they are not really caused by the fur itself, regardless of the size.
Btw this is what I meant when I pointed that most discussions are emotional than rooted in reality.
>Unless you mean to say that as long as dogs exist in a public space, your child’s existence is threatened.
No, I am saying that public places are not allowed to say a dog cannot exist there, so effectively my choice (and more often than not these days) is to take my kid and leave, or have my kid be in the same space as the dog. This includes playgrounds, restaurants, grocery stores, etc. Every dog is a service dog.
>Untrained pitbulls can be dangerous, but did the dog display any aggression at any point?
Why would I wait for it to display aggression? Just like any other animal that is capable of causing a lot of damage, I would be on alert, and preferably keep my kid away. There is obviously no possibility to react quickly enough to stop a large animal from hurting someone a few feet away.
>Or is the whole story just “a well trained dog was in the vicinity of children, presumably not off leash, and I did not like that because I fear for my children all the time”?
How is someone supposed to know it was well trained? Especially given the prior probabilities of the type of people who own large pitbulls in the first place. Just like you evaluate the type of people you're around (for example those with loaded weapons, brandishing knives, etc), why would it not make sense to evaluate the type of animal that is around?
>Btw this is what I meant when I pointed that most discussions are emotional than rooted in reality.
I don't see evaluating potential consequences as being emotional. You might ascribe a lower probability of injury, but I don't see it as consistent to give large dogs the benefit of the doubt just because they are dogs. Especially when all the stats indicate increased damaged from certain types.
> This includes playgrounds, restaurants, grocery stores, etc
Dogs are most definitely not allowed in playgrounds, restaurants (unless it’s for an outdoor seating) and grocery stores.
Everything else you described is mostly you expressing your discomfort around large dogs, stemming for your parental instincts to protect your child. Which is by definition an emotional response.
> Just like you evaluate the type of people you're around
Btw there are two types of evaluations. One is situational awareness and the other is stereotyping. Looking at a large dog that’s minding its own business but complaining about it because it’s a pitbull and COULD be dangerous, fits the second type.
> Just like any other animal that is capable of causing a lot of damage, I would be on alert, and preferably keep my kid away. There is obviously no possibility to react quickly enough to stop a large animal from hurting someone a few feet away.
It's almost as if you don't realize that humans are even larger animals, also capable of causing a lot of damage.
> It makes no sense that any other large animal with similar characteristics as a large pitbull would have been disallowed, but because a pitbull falls under dog, it is allowed.
I will just point toward horses, which are dangerous animals, significant more dangerous than any wild animals we allow near civilization, and which no human has any ability to fully control. They weight somewhere around a car, has high risk of going out of control if spooked, and there very little anyone can do once that amount of mass is moving.
Mounted police, cart and horse ride (often on busy tourist streets), or just places that has horse rides directed toward children. We would not treat other large and dangerous animals with similar characteristics to be used as we do with horses.
Isn't using police horses considered animal cruelty, and an outdated mode of policing mostly used as a show of force? Same for cart and horse rides, but again, the horses are not inside of businesses and airplanes and right next to a kid.
I wouldn't want my kid to be near the legs of a random horse either. If a reputable business is offering horse rides, then I have a little extra assurance of the horse's training or the handler's capabilities.
> If a reputable business is offering horse rides, then I have a little extra assurance of the horse's training or the handler's capabilities.
Them what we are talking about is training. Many dog owners will agree that training is important for the well being of the dog and essential if you want to have them around other people (and dogs). For owners that want to have dogs off the leash it is extremely risky without extensive training, unless they are puppies under certain age.
The more potentially dangerous an animal is, the more training should be required before they are allowed in spaces that risk other people. Given the number of deaths and serious injuries that animals do each year to humans, it seems fairly common sense to have such requirement that scale with how high the risk is given any specific animal.
Horse riding by children would be a bit more complicated. Not sure it is possible to reduce the risk to safe levels, but then that is the role of training and certification regulations.
On our beaches and dunes, police on a horse is still a thing, especially if distance between people is high. It makes more sense than any kind of mechanical vehucle, too.
Walking path at my tennis park is for people only. No dogs, no bikes, and I'm not even allowed to skate it. Personally I'd like dogs only at dog parks but we're not there as a society.
We need to get much safer dog parks. Too many of them are just huge areas of off leash dogs and it's terrible for the dogs involved. It breeds bad play behaviors, dog-dog reactivity, spreads disease between dogs, and encouraged bad owners who just let their dog run free unsupervised.
Dogs that spend a lot of time in dog parks are way more likely to behave badly when they see other dogs when they are out for a walk.
It's so weird for me to see anti dog park talk on the internet because my experience has been very positive with dog parks in general. Almost all the dogs are basically fine, serious behavioral issues are rare. Sometimes dogs get a little too rowdy playing but owners are always quick to step in. I wonder if it's a regional dog owner culture thing (I'm in a suburb of Seattle for reference).
Dogs aren't a native species and can in fact be ecologically damaging. Squirrel population control is a question beyond my ability. Butterflies are both native and useful. Hopefully this is helpful.
No it's not, your local tennis park has no ecology to speak of that could be disrupted by dogs. You just don't like dogs and instead of stating that you want your preference imposed on everybody else just because it's your preference, you have a list of dubious reasons why dogs shouldn't be allowed here or there.
I personally think we have this all wrong, and that all species should have to comply with some level of public decorum to be allowed in public human-dominated spaces.
If a dog doesn't make loud noises, physically agitates others, or excessively spread diseases (slobbering all over the place), it seems fine to let them be in the same place. If someone has allergies, an agreement can usually be worked out to create distance, but if it can't we should favor the human.
So in a sense, I agree with you: They should have licenses that can be revoked based on their behavior. I don't really care if they're for service reasons or otherwise, I just care they're fit to be in public. Some dogs are, some aren't. Basically, we should be comfortable with fascistic enforcement around dog's behaviorally. That seems like a healthy middle-ground.
The cringiest hill to die on might be the hill of exaggerated moral panic.
There are about 931283918982 more important issues than someone being offended at seeing a dog in close proximity at a place where you have an opinion that they shouldn't be.
As long as your pet doesn't come in contact with my food or defecate near it, you really should focus on more important things in life.
The expectation that other people follow some basic rules of decorum is foundational to a functioning society.
If you say that petty anti-social behavior is off limits because there are bigger problems, you are ceding the decisions about how society functions to people that make bad, anti-social choices.
Please don't post duplicate comments like this, or just post the name of a fallacy as a response. It lacks substance and detracts from the kind of respectful conversation we're hoping for on HN.
Sorry Tom. I apologize to the moderators and other posters and will attempt to only post high quality discussion moving forward.
I notice that my initial comments are generally high quality but that I feel compelled to respond to everything and something about the increased volume, the thing I'm responding to not being directly something I picked from 30 different articles I read, and the inherent sub-current of challenge to my sometimes obstinate initial comments causes me to get defensive and snippy, and I need to work on that. A simple fix is to not respond to responses, but the edifying fix is to think about why I respond this way (inferiority complex when reading and commenting with generally higher than average internet users and/or not wanting to look stupid in front of the brainy computer people, possibly) to consider this as my bias, and to attempt to counteract it.
We have limited time and limited number of problems we can address.
It's only natural to prioritize them and displays a higher level of critical thinking than pointing an argument you don't like and trying to pin some made up fallacy on it.
Honest question: how can you distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate therapy dogs if the owner doesn't have a visible handicap?
Like what if a veteran struggling with PTSD has a therapy dog to help keep them emotionally regulated? Or is that a fake service animal by your defintion?
I agree that people abuse this system, but if you're publicly shaming people, how do you avoid false positives?
Emotional support animals that don't perform a specific task never qualify as service animals; whether the human has any particular diagnosis doesn't matter.
No, I get that. I was responding specifically to the idea of going around trying to publicly shame people based on just seeing them with their service animal.
> Like what if a veteran struggling with PTSD has a therapy dog to help keep them emotionally regulated?
Is that actually a real thing? As in: I'm sure some people struggling with PTSD greatly benefit from their pets, but do they really need them at their sides 24/7 for "emotional support" and can't do some shopping without one?
One example I’ve heard of (not endorsing the veracity, just something I’ve heard) is dogs being trained to recognize panic attacks and respond by lifting itself up and rest its forelegs on its owners shoulders and its chest on its owners chest, basically giving them a hug (which is adorable, tragedy aside).
So yes, in that context they’d be there 24/7, or near enough, but obviously that’s a different story from someone’s yorkie yapping at the DMV or whatever.
I don't have any special domain knowledge in this space, but I know that's an advertised use case for emotional support animals.[0]
I don't know if the client needs the service animal around 24/7, but if you have severe PTSD and could experience severe symptoms unexpectedly while shopping, it seems reasonable to bring along the support animal.
That's kind of what I mean: reading that page, it just sounds like normal pet ownership, with many of the benefits that many pet owners get. That's a great thing to encourage and research, but it's not clear to me why there needs to be a special "emotional support animal" classification or the like.
Generally the behavior of the animal is a dead give away. Trained service animals don't wander away from their owners, seek attention from strangers, react to other animals, eat things off of the ground, and will sit directly beside their owners or under a table if so instructed. If you see a dog behaving differently, that dog isn't a trained service animal.
Legit service dogs are legit, go watch footage of them working. I'll probably eventually be wrong someday and have to apologize profusely but that's the risk you run.
People are insufferable, especially when they're contesting the same shared space over different ways of use. There' no point in hating dogs - or bicycles - they're not the problem, being inconsiderate is.
(That's for both sides, though there is a certain asymmetry in those cases. For example, my 4yo kid isn't going to kill an adult cyclist speeding down the narrow path in the park leading directly to the kindergarten, because they're in a hurry or it's some stupid "bicycle May" thing and they're scoring silly points, or something. The reverse however, is very much likely.)
Someone got mad at me today because I said "we beat slavery" was I accidentally dog whistling? It's just how I thought about it. I guess "white people" did beat it but also "white people" were doing it. We kind of beat it as a country is what I meant. Idk my family wasn't even here yet but I'm just happy there isn't slavery.
You are being actively obtuse here, which is understandable if perhaps you're taking almostgotcaught's comments as a direct attack on you. (which it most likely isn't)
If you looked at the adjacent comments you would immediately see a combination of "western christian values," and open pondering that "Epstein is an Israeli asset. Democrats and Republicans have loyalty to Israel." This alone is enough dog whistling for at least my neighborhood's dogs to start acting up.
Sorry, It wasn't a rhetorical device, it actually happened to me today. I'm not taking either "side", I thought it might explain something I didn't understand. 100% legitimately.
Remember Vatican 2? you may have heard about it. pretty big deal, lots of changes in the catholic church, made a whole bunch of news, put the latin mass out to pasture and also pulled back on the doctrine of deicide, ruffled a lot of feathers, etc.
There are some people who yearn for the aesthetics and cultural heritage of the latin mass. They miss the funny words in a language they don't speak, the historical continuity of the latin liturgy, etc. For these types, it's purely innocent aesthetic yearning, mostly harmless.
There are also some people who both miss the latin mass and feel very strongly about the perfidy of the jews being a theologically important teaching. These anti-semitic sedevacantist types share the same information ecology with all of the more harmless latin mass types. Dog whistles are a tool that can be used to disambiguate between the two types of latin-mass-enjoyers.
Fetishizing "western christian values" communicates different things when one of the most prominent far-right groups, the proud boys, makes this a central doctrine. If a latin-mass-enjoyer were to tell me they deeply valued western christian values, before airing their favorite anti-semitic conspiracies, I'm likely to predict they're not into latin mass for purely aesthetic reasons.
I am curious... what's up with your "What race is Hal?" questions throughout this thread? Unless I'm super unobservant I legitimately don't remember it being made explicit in the novel. Avril is obviously French-Canadian[1], so she's presumably white, which would also make Hal at least half white, but I don't remember any description of JOI's appearance (when he was alive lol) or ethnicity beyond him being very tall.
I feel like a more definitive question could be "Which ETA student is missing several fingers?" or "How did Bruce Green's mom die?" or "What's the call sign for Joelle's radio station?" or "What roams the Great Concavity?"[2]
[1] I can't remember if CT is a true Quebecker or not, but if he is, I could at least say that Mario is 100% French-Canadian, lol.
[2] Or I just thought of another... "Which ETA student has an ironically apt disease?"
Well this was gonna bother me until I figured it out, so, drumroll... Hal Incandenza is... a white boy! Or at least he says he is. Who would've thunk.
> "I’m a privileged white seventeen-year-old U.S. male."
I think it has the air of a trick question though. Most readers will (correctly) assume that Hal is white, which the text does little to dispute or confirm barring a throwaway reference or two (and which is unlikely to stand out in their minds since it confirms what they already assumed), so encountering such a question makes it seem like the answer is more complicated than "Shockingly, the tennis heir protagonist written by a white American author is also a white American kid." And for many people it's somewhat gauche to admit that you assumed a character was white by default, so if you hazard a (correct) guess of "Well he's white, isn't he?" but it turns out there was a different throwaway reference to him being a quarter Puerto Rican or something, you might be a little embarrassed!
EDIT: I forgot there is actually a throwaway reference to Hal being (at most) 1/8th Native American, lol.
> ...a great-grandmother with Pima-tribe Indian S.W. blood, and Canadian cross-breeding...
You are correct, and I'm proud to grant you the first "Actually Read Infinite Jest" award. You've also come to the proof differently than I did: there's a section wherein the two urban black gentlemen who work at ETA rescue a severely intoxicated stork from the subway. They specify that James was a lost "white boy", which, along with his mother being French Canadian, inform the reader that he is "white".
You've also sniffed out my question's exploit, wherein people who haven't actually read the entire book, and who may have read the line about his dark skin near the beginning of the book, will reveal themselves because they assume the obvious answer can't be correct. They "tell on themselves" as the kids say. I smile at the idea that overthinking causes people to reveal they didn't read a book in which overthinking is a major theme. I highly suspect the majority of other commenters in this thread did not fully read the novel. This doesn't make them bad or "inferior", but lying does. They know they are wrong because my pointing it out caused them to become angry.
I've started a re read, and I'm taking notes this time. Perhaps we should start a HN bookclub.
I do need a new proof if this thread makes this one Googabale.
there's some insinuation that Hal's biological father could be the medical attache:
-- Hal's "atavistically dark-complected”
-- they share an interest in byzantine erotica
-- from what i remember, dates and ages line up correctly to put Avril and attache both attending Brandeis a yearish before Hal is born
-- there's a reference or two to James finding that specific affair particularly upsetting
-- Avril's said to have a preference for sleeping with Canadians
-- the attache is "one-half ethnic Arab and a Canadian by birth and residence"
IIRC it's mentioned that James is also unusually tan-skinned for a white guy, but I don't think that disproves the insinuation so much as it provides a convenient excuse for Avril, lol.
Perhaps you'll also believe me when I say I've read Infinite Jest too many times to warrant another reread right now, but best of luck on yours and the nascent book club, lol.
I think there are some less blink-and-you'll-miss-it type questions that are too broad to Google but that most people who read it would remember...
- Which location in ETA got its name from an infamous player?
- What fictional cartoon character is popular during Subsidized Time?
- What mortifying experience does Gately have in the hospital?
- What's Lyle's second-favorite beverage?
Or one that requires a longer reply and doesn't have a "correct" answer, but props to anyone who takes a stab at it, because I still don't have a satisfying explanation:
- What the fuck is wrong with Orin? Like in general?
You aren't as extraordinary as you think you are by finishing the book. It is long, but it isn't incredibly long. By making this insinuation of others' lack of honesty in their claims of reading the book, it's as if you either believe the book to be unbearably boring for the average reader, which is odd for a fan of a literary work, or perhaps you'd just prefer to gatekeep this imagined status that you've invented for yourself, as someone who has managed the supposedly inhuman accomplishment of finishing the book. I and likely a decent many others in this thread have read it through. However, I've never convinced myself to have achieved something uniquely exceptional by simply having read what an author wrote, like you seem to have done.
Reading is incredibly easy in the modern era and I'm not special for having completed the book. I'm of average or sub average intelligence. I'm not gatekeeping anything and encourage everyone to read the book. It probably took me longer to finish than most other people who have. I still don't understand large portions of the novel.
That said, I've found that most online conversations about IJ seem to be held by people who really seem like they haven't read the book. I don't understand the phenomenon and haven't offered an explanation. I got on this kick 28 days ago when a commenter here said (about a different novel) "for what it's worth, up to now, you're the only other person in this entire thread I'm convinced has actually read the book.". I reviewed the rest of the comments in the thread, and he had a point. I think that implying you've read a novel you haven't is a frequent occurrence, and it is common with IJ because of the length and the popular intellectual status appeal it had in the 90s. This is a somewhat known phenomenon, as I recall reading a quote from a musician who stated something along the lines of "everyone owns a half read copy of infinite Jest in rehab".
It seems to me like people who've read the book could just answer the question. One person in this thread actually did. They certainly read the book. Everyone else? Well, they (and you, in fact) didn't answer a fairly simple question, and then got pissed off. You can draw your own conclusions.
>Everyone else? Well, they (and you, in fact) didn't answer a fairly simple question, and then got pissed off. You can draw your own conclusions.
I did see the question you spammed around the thread. Most people likely didn't respond as they don't have any motivation to prove anything to a random user, which is what you are to them. Also, I couldn't have refused to answer the question you spammed, like you seem to be implying, as I was never asked. Unless you are confusing me with someone else, you seem to be reaching the inane conclusion that every single user who glances at your questions and doesn't respond is implicitly refusing, which is absurd.
Besides this, the premise of your question is flawed, as you would have recognized had you thought through it. The detail, besides his being white, that you seem to be looking for is of hardly any relevance to the novel. A reader could skip the pages those details are mentioned and it would have virtually no bearing on their ability to understand any context, as anyone who has read the book would know. It's about as relevant as remembering the exact number of days till Hal's urine test. Similarly, you could pick any given book that a group of people have read cover-to-cover, and ask a question about a minute detail, and likely most of the readers would not be able to accurately answer, unless they either just finished reading the work, or are currently reading or re-reading it, which you admitted to be doing.
Oh yeah? We'll I'll meet you tomorrow at high noon on the tennis courts next to 1 Nevins Hill Way Brighton Ma 02135 with a polygraph machine and we'll really settle this buddy!!!!!!!
Really though I think I'm right but I don't care at this point and I'm probably being an ass so sorry about that. I did start the re read after the comments but that doesn't really matter. I apologize for being rude to peeps sometimes I get obstinate.
If you read the book you should know your little game is antithetical to the book, you are reducing discussion to the chasing of carrots and recitation of OED entries; trivia, easy but empty rewards. So according to my test, you are the one who has not read it.
Why not contribute something of worth and demonstrate that you have read it by engaging in discussion about it instead of playing games?
I'm sorry I have to do this but I'm presenting you with the "may not have read Infinite Jest award". You are the first recipient so please feel honored. I'm going to start doing this regularly online.
I only read it once, in 2016. So the details are fuzzy. Hal's dad cooks his own head in the microwave, right? And Hal comments on how it smelled good or something?
In the Republic of Congo, where Pygmies are estimated to make up between 1.2% and 10% of the population,[37] many Pygmies live as slaves to Bantu masters. The nation is deeply stratified between these two major ethnic groups. The Pygmy slaves belong from birth to their Bantu masters in a relationship that the Bantus call a time-honored tradition....
In 2003, Sinafasi Makelo, a representative of Mbuti pygmies, told the UN's Indigenous People's Forum that during the Congo Civil War, his people were hunted down and eaten as though they were game animals. In neighboring North Kivu province there has been cannibalism by a death squad known as Les Effaceurs ("the erasers") who wanted to clear the land of people to open it up for mineral exploitation.[40] Both sides of the war regarded them as "subhuman", and some say their flesh can confer magical powers.[41]...
Pygmies are often evicted from their land and given the lowest paying jobs. At a state level, Pygmies are not considered citizens by most African states, and are refused identity cards, deeds to land, health care and education access.
I'm sure there's some sort of point I'm making about the absurdity of a signature being used to verify anything (when the nice old lady volunteering at the polling station makes me sign again because it doesn't quite look like my signature even though I have photo ID and have arrived in person at the correct polling location I want to do a backflip, but I of course don't because I want to be nice to the old lady), but mostly it just makes me smile.
reply