Yeah, so I use Anki. Which is a very good, very gratis flashcard program. You can download it here if you feel like. /advertising
With this flashcard program you can download decks that other people have made, most often from textbooks or lists of required vocabulary for different tests. Like all the Kanji for which ever JLPT level you are studying for. I think the program was designed specifically for learning Japanese vocab. Not the point.
The point of this post is that I downloaded the deck for the required vocabulary for the SAT. At least that's what I think it is. It's called "5000 Collegiate Words (SAT vocabulary)", and it's got all kinds of big words and their definition and stuff. Real fun really.
Only thing is that the definition for "aboriginal" is "primitive, sophisticated", and thou I have no doubt that this definition is valid, it seems kind of... racist.
I looked it up on Merriam Webster and the definition there was (paraphrased by me) "something original to an area" and "the native people in Australia". The last of these being what I associate with this word.
So, the native people of Australia, and possibly all native people everywhere, are by definition primitive?
I must admit I have known some rather odd Sami people in my day (Scandinavian natives, lives far north, ride snow scooters, farm reindeer and makes beautiful clothing and music), but I would not call them neither primitive or unsophisticated.
I don't really know why this bothers me, I myself do not have any native genes to my knowledge, but I find this kind of over generalization offensive anyway.
It's like say that, "just because you have been here longer than us, we are the superior race" or something.
I realize that this has been the generally accepted view throughout history, that natives where primitive and should be supressed. There were special Sami schools in Norway as well as anywhere else, where they were supposed to learn to be Norwegian. They were refused the right to practice their own religion, only Christianity was allowed. They were not allowed to speak their own language, wear their own clothes, or in any way learn about or practice their own culture. These schools were often far away from their homes and families, and were just about indoctrination camps.
And then we sit on our high chairs and call them primitive. I find this offensive.
But then again the Jante Law, and we-are-better-you-just-because have always seemed wrong to me. Maybe because it has been applied to me one time too many.
I realize that it's just a word and all that, but it gives me an iffy feeling anyway. Words have power. Meh
Showing posts with label rant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rant. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Oh noes! My boobs are A-cup, I must be a child!O.o
Recently in Australia they banned some adult magazines.
They have this board you see, in Australia, who has these guidelines, and before you read any further, this rant might become graphic. It's about how some ridicules rules in these guidelines got some ridicules things banned.
Yeah, mom? This is not a rant for you. You're allowed to read it of course, but I take no responsibility for what I say beyond this point. Just a warning you see=D
First thing I want to talk about that they banned.
They banned all porn featuring female ejaculation, on the grounds that there is no proof that this happens, and that therefore the women must be peeing, and peeing is bad.
Why peeing is bad is a little beyond me, urine is sterile, and thou I would not enjoyed being peed on myself, I know some people do.
Aaaaanywho, how do we not have proof that female ejaculation exist? Maybe because a lot of religious people find the female orgasm "filthy" or "ungodly" or something, and therefore they have decided it doesn't exist. (Not a slight on religion in itself, just that some religious people take their convictions a little too far. Like say, into other people's personal life?)
Or maybe this is because these people have only watched the traditional male-gratification porn where only the man matters, and the woman is almost nothing more than a prop?
Or some other similar reason.
The fact is, anyone who's ever watched a few porn where the female is the focus, like a female porn star's own website for example, where she makes the videos, and it's about her pleasure, have very likely seen female ejaculation (or "squirting") more than once. It happens people, don't know what causes it, but I know for a fact that it's not pee.
But then of course, if you look at it that way, I am sure you can say that they just say "oh, but this has never happened to me. It must be fake". It does not happen to everybody, this does not make it fake.
Is it really so unthinkable for these people that a woman can so hard that they squirt? They must have very unrewarding sexual lives.
The next thing that they banned was a bunch of adult magazines called "Barely Legal". Which features women who have indeed just turned legal. But that is just the point, the magazine has documentation that all these girls are in fact legal, and they don't portray themselves to be underage (which does actually classify as child pornography).
The reason? Their boobs are too small.
WHAT THE FUCK!!! I have several friends, hot friends I might add, who had a-cup boobs. Or even small a-cups. These girls can then by this definition never go into the adult entertainment industry, because they happen to not be well endowed enough in the chest area.
We spend a lot of time talking about how chest size is not important, how guys will like you even thou you have small knockers, and then they go and do this and effectively do their best to tell us we are wrong. What's next, are you gonna slap guys with statutory rape charges because the 20 year old girl they slept with last weekend had braces?! (Yeah, girls with braces, that is child porn people.)
So not only does these girls have to feel that they don't live up to society's ideal that only well endowed girls are hot, they are also being told that the guys who like them are by definition pedophiles, because they like small boobs. WTF?!
In reality the message these people are sending is that if your chest is too small you are still a child. I bet in six months we are going to read some shocking story about how the rate of young girls getting boob jobs in Australia has gone up some sort of vast amount.
And on top of that, because of people's super short attention span, they are going to wonder why.
That is so messed up.
The actual guideline states:
"publications which contain offensive depictions or descriptions of persons who are or appear to be persons under the age of 18 (wether they are engaged in sexual activity or not) must be classified RC (Refused Classification).
What exactly does this mean anyway? If a girl that looks young, it's perfectly illegal for her to be a porn star?
The justification behind all this banning is that looking at porn with young looking girls is going to make people go out and molest children. Um, what?
Does this mean that if I watch a drama where somebody murders someone, this is going to make me want to kill? If that is the case, I am wired wrong I think.
I happened upon "Two Girls, One Cup" about a year back. It did not in any way shape or form make me wanna poo in a cup (that was as far as I got before getting so grossed out I turned it off). Or "One Guy, One Screwdriver". That did NOT make me want to shove a screwdriver up someones penis. Is there something wrong with me?
If I see a porn flick with girls with small boobs and a young looking face, that's supposed to make me wanna fuck 15 year old girls? It is much more likely to make me want to fuck that particular girl, if she's cute that is.
The thing here is: the fact that men that like to molest children might like this kind of porn, does not make all men who like to watch this kind of porn child molesters. You might as well say that since all men (or women for that matter. I am pretty sure that over a third of the people who molest children are women) who has at some point eaten, or gone to school, or been children themselves for that matter, everyone else who meets these classifications must also want to molest children. This means that you, reading this right now, must secretly want to molest children. O.o I'm wrong? Yeah, thought so. (If I am not, I really don't want to know.)
These friends I talked about, with the small boobs (which I can tell you from personal experience (gym showers and the like) are pretty, and have nothing juvenile bout them) have boyfriends. Are they even allowed to have sex? Or are these guys sleeping with children. Not only are they over sixteen, which are the legal age of having sex in Norway, they also over eighteen, which means they are of age, they are even over 20 which means they can buy hard liqueurs.
They could legally have sold their bodies if they wanted (before they made prostitution illegal that is), but should their boyfriends have one single topless photo of them this would make their boyfriends in possession of child porn.
NO! Guys, you are not sex offenders damn it! You are healthy boys with gorgeous ADULT girlfriends!
This rule is RIDICULES!!!
And while we are at it.
In the states you can, if you are under the age of eighteen and sends a topless photo of yourself to your boyfriend, get slapped with a "spreading child pornography" charge, and be put on the sex offenders list. How messed up is that?
I mean, just because you sent a naughty picture of yourself to the boy you love, you will be on a list for the rest of your life, which is accessible for EVERYONE online, with your full name and current address. You will have to live a certain distance from schools playgrounds and kindergartens for the rest of your life. Some kindergartens may forbid you to take your child there yourself, and you have to get someone else to do it.
I realize that some people are very short sighted, narrow minded, and inside the box over the big pond, but COME ON!
If some fourteen year old girl does something stupid, apparently she deserves to have her entire life ruined?
You know what. Sometimes I love Norway. Norway is not perfect in any way, but we do have such things as affordable health care for everyone, a system to help people who are bad at life to get better, a system to help disabled (both mentally and physically) people to leave full and rich lives, and a system to make sure that sort of thing does not happen!
Norway is fucking awesome! Go Norway!
Yeah, this post was written a little at a time, with me, through boyfriend, acquiring new information, and then going up and adding or editing.
The thing is, that what's gonna be banned (i.e. what's gonna be found offensive) is completely up to the reviewer. And that is simply too vague.
Where does the line go for too small boobs, aa-cup, a-cup, a small b-cup? Or too big eyes. Big eyes make you look young.
What is offensive? Does kissing, or holding hands count? This is offensive to some people. Or do you have to show breast. How much breast? Cleavage? Nipple?
Where does the lines go?
There is no rules about this, no guidelines, it's all at the reviewers discretion, and that means that one reviewer might allow something really risque, and the next reviewer draw the line at, lets say, a but-crack showing above a panty line?
It's stupid, and wrong!
(this post may be cleaned up and rewritten later on)
They have this board you see, in Australia, who has these guidelines, and before you read any further, this rant might become graphic. It's about how some ridicules rules in these guidelines got some ridicules things banned.
Yeah, mom? This is not a rant for you. You're allowed to read it of course, but I take no responsibility for what I say beyond this point. Just a warning you see=D
First thing I want to talk about that they banned.
They banned all porn featuring female ejaculation, on the grounds that there is no proof that this happens, and that therefore the women must be peeing, and peeing is bad.
Why peeing is bad is a little beyond me, urine is sterile, and thou I would not enjoyed being peed on myself, I know some people do.
Aaaaanywho, how do we not have proof that female ejaculation exist? Maybe because a lot of religious people find the female orgasm "filthy" or "ungodly" or something, and therefore they have decided it doesn't exist. (Not a slight on religion in itself, just that some religious people take their convictions a little too far. Like say, into other people's personal life?)
Or maybe this is because these people have only watched the traditional male-gratification porn where only the man matters, and the woman is almost nothing more than a prop?
Or some other similar reason.
The fact is, anyone who's ever watched a few porn where the female is the focus, like a female porn star's own website for example, where she makes the videos, and it's about her pleasure, have very likely seen female ejaculation (or "squirting") more than once. It happens people, don't know what causes it, but I know for a fact that it's not pee.
But then of course, if you look at it that way, I am sure you can say that they just say "oh, but this has never happened to me. It must be fake". It does not happen to everybody, this does not make it fake.
Is it really so unthinkable for these people that a woman can so hard that they squirt? They must have very unrewarding sexual lives.
The next thing that they banned was a bunch of adult magazines called "Barely Legal". Which features women who have indeed just turned legal. But that is just the point, the magazine has documentation that all these girls are in fact legal, and they don't portray themselves to be underage (which does actually classify as child pornography).
The reason? Their boobs are too small.
WHAT THE FUCK!!! I have several friends, hot friends I might add, who had a-cup boobs. Or even small a-cups. These girls can then by this definition never go into the adult entertainment industry, because they happen to not be well endowed enough in the chest area.
We spend a lot of time talking about how chest size is not important, how guys will like you even thou you have small knockers, and then they go and do this and effectively do their best to tell us we are wrong. What's next, are you gonna slap guys with statutory rape charges because the 20 year old girl they slept with last weekend had braces?! (Yeah, girls with braces, that is child porn people.)
So not only does these girls have to feel that they don't live up to society's ideal that only well endowed girls are hot, they are also being told that the guys who like them are by definition pedophiles, because they like small boobs. WTF?!
In reality the message these people are sending is that if your chest is too small you are still a child. I bet in six months we are going to read some shocking story about how the rate of young girls getting boob jobs in Australia has gone up some sort of vast amount.
And on top of that, because of people's super short attention span, they are going to wonder why.
That is so messed up.
The actual guideline states:
"publications which contain offensive depictions or descriptions of persons who are or appear to be persons under the age of 18 (wether they are engaged in sexual activity or not) must be classified RC (Refused Classification).
What exactly does this mean anyway? If a girl that looks young, it's perfectly illegal for her to be a porn star?
The justification behind all this banning is that looking at porn with young looking girls is going to make people go out and molest children. Um, what?
Does this mean that if I watch a drama where somebody murders someone, this is going to make me want to kill? If that is the case, I am wired wrong I think.
I happened upon "Two Girls, One Cup" about a year back. It did not in any way shape or form make me wanna poo in a cup (that was as far as I got before getting so grossed out I turned it off). Or "One Guy, One Screwdriver". That did NOT make me want to shove a screwdriver up someones penis. Is there something wrong with me?
If I see a porn flick with girls with small boobs and a young looking face, that's supposed to make me wanna fuck 15 year old girls? It is much more likely to make me want to fuck that particular girl, if she's cute that is.
The thing here is: the fact that men that like to molest children might like this kind of porn, does not make all men who like to watch this kind of porn child molesters. You might as well say that since all men (or women for that matter. I am pretty sure that over a third of the people who molest children are women) who has at some point eaten, or gone to school, or been children themselves for that matter, everyone else who meets these classifications must also want to molest children. This means that you, reading this right now, must secretly want to molest children. O.o I'm wrong? Yeah, thought so. (If I am not, I really don't want to know.)
These friends I talked about, with the small boobs (which I can tell you from personal experience (gym showers and the like) are pretty, and have nothing juvenile bout them) have boyfriends. Are they even allowed to have sex? Or are these guys sleeping with children. Not only are they over sixteen, which are the legal age of having sex in Norway, they also over eighteen, which means they are of age, they are even over 20 which means they can buy hard liqueurs.
They could legally have sold their bodies if they wanted (before they made prostitution illegal that is), but should their boyfriends have one single topless photo of them this would make their boyfriends in possession of child porn.
NO! Guys, you are not sex offenders damn it! You are healthy boys with gorgeous ADULT girlfriends!
This rule is RIDICULES!!!
And while we are at it.
In the states you can, if you are under the age of eighteen and sends a topless photo of yourself to your boyfriend, get slapped with a "spreading child pornography" charge, and be put on the sex offenders list. How messed up is that?
I mean, just because you sent a naughty picture of yourself to the boy you love, you will be on a list for the rest of your life, which is accessible for EVERYONE online, with your full name and current address. You will have to live a certain distance from schools playgrounds and kindergartens for the rest of your life. Some kindergartens may forbid you to take your child there yourself, and you have to get someone else to do it.
I realize that some people are very short sighted, narrow minded, and inside the box over the big pond, but COME ON!
If some fourteen year old girl does something stupid, apparently she deserves to have her entire life ruined?
You know what. Sometimes I love Norway. Norway is not perfect in any way, but we do have such things as affordable health care for everyone, a system to help people who are bad at life to get better, a system to help disabled (both mentally and physically) people to leave full and rich lives, and a system to make sure that sort of thing does not happen!
Norway is fucking awesome! Go Norway!
Yeah, this post was written a little at a time, with me, through boyfriend, acquiring new information, and then going up and adding or editing.
The thing is, that what's gonna be banned (i.e. what's gonna be found offensive) is completely up to the reviewer. And that is simply too vague.
Where does the line go for too small boobs, aa-cup, a-cup, a small b-cup? Or too big eyes. Big eyes make you look young.
What is offensive? Does kissing, or holding hands count? This is offensive to some people. Or do you have to show breast. How much breast? Cleavage? Nipple?
Where does the lines go?
There is no rules about this, no guidelines, it's all at the reviewers discretion, and that means that one reviewer might allow something really risque, and the next reviewer draw the line at, lets say, a but-crack showing above a panty line?
It's stupid, and wrong!
(this post may be cleaned up and rewritten later on)
Monday, August 31, 2009
Joss Whedon is pure evil!
Yes! Evol I tells ya!!!
Warning! Here be spoilers!!!
So I am watching Angel, right? And the relationship between Doyle and Cordelia is just to sweet and awkward for words, seeing as Doyle is a half demon and he thinks Cordelia loathes men like him, even thou she secretly lusts for him and so on.
And then comes the episode where she finally finds out, and they have a cute little reunion scene, where she tells him it doesn't matter either way "and would you ask me out for dinner already?"
And then there is this super evil half breed killing light thingy, and Doyle figures he needs to be a hero so he kisses Cordelia, and they're all smoochy and stuff, and then he jumps up on the thingamabob to unplug, and of course gets him self killed saving everyone else! What's the deal with Joss Whedon always killing all the cool characters?
I mean Cordelia is kind of cool, but she is girl so we can't kill her, and if she dies I guess Doyle stops being so interesting. And Angel is the holier than thou, broody guy, who just happens to be the main character so we can't kill him either. That only leaves Doyle I guess, but why for Pete's does anyone have to die at all?!
If you should kill anyone, why can't Angel die again? Then we can get a few cool episodes where they try to bring his holiness back, and we could have some Willow action. But noooo, he has to kill the only cool guy in the series.
Yes, I know all the fanatics will probably flame me for saying this, but Angel is an effing boring character, and I am mostly just watching the stupid show because the finacé is making me. It wouldn't even by halfway as interesting without Cordelia, who is the life of the entire show.
I will probably suffer through the rest of the series just so that I can watch Lorne and Drusilla later on.
And one more thing. Why does Joss keep recycling his characters? I mean, I get that he is sad to see them go from Buffy, and some of them are cool, but still. I mean Westley was cool in Buffy and all that, but he is not that cool that he needs to be in a 101 episodes of Angel. Not by my standards anyway. I don't know, he probably evolves (I hope) into and interesting guy.
And then of course there are the characters he just can't bring himself to killing. Like Faith. He apparently has unfinished business with Faith. Well we will just have to see what that evolves into. (She just waked up from the coma.)
Yeah, and I know there is this clause about when a Slayer dies one now one is "activated", but what if she is incapable to slay. Like for instance if she lies in a coma for 8 months, shouldn't a new one get activated? Or is evil to be allowed to reign until she wakes up?
But what do I know. I'm just your stupid audience!
And one more thing? What's the deal with killing Shepherd Book? Or Wash for that matter? Yeah I realize that were probably meant to die in the series as well, but why?
You could just as well kill Inara! Or Kaylee for that matter! But quite honestly if he killed Kaylee (or Willow for that matter) I would never have watched ANYTHING he made past or present EVER again!!!
But I think I will end this rant now, because I can feel myself rambling.
And in case you haven't noticed I get passionate about these kinds of thingsXP I can rant for hours on end. That is part of what makes me adorable I have been toldXP
Nightynight kiddiesXP
Warning! Here be spoilers!!!
So I am watching Angel, right? And the relationship between Doyle and Cordelia is just to sweet and awkward for words, seeing as Doyle is a half demon and he thinks Cordelia loathes men like him, even thou she secretly lusts for him and so on.
And then comes the episode where she finally finds out, and they have a cute little reunion scene, where she tells him it doesn't matter either way "and would you ask me out for dinner already?"
And then there is this super evil half breed killing light thingy, and Doyle figures he needs to be a hero so he kisses Cordelia, and they're all smoochy and stuff, and then he jumps up on the thingamabob to unplug, and of course gets him self killed saving everyone else! What's the deal with Joss Whedon always killing all the cool characters?
I mean Cordelia is kind of cool, but she is girl so we can't kill her, and if she dies I guess Doyle stops being so interesting. And Angel is the holier than thou, broody guy, who just happens to be the main character so we can't kill him either. That only leaves Doyle I guess, but why for Pete's does anyone have to die at all?!
If you should kill anyone, why can't Angel die again? Then we can get a few cool episodes where they try to bring his holiness back, and we could have some Willow action. But noooo, he has to kill the only cool guy in the series.
Yes, I know all the fanatics will probably flame me for saying this, but Angel is an effing boring character, and I am mostly just watching the stupid show because the finacé is making me. It wouldn't even by halfway as interesting without Cordelia, who is the life of the entire show.
I will probably suffer through the rest of the series just so that I can watch Lorne and Drusilla later on.
And one more thing. Why does Joss keep recycling his characters? I mean, I get that he is sad to see them go from Buffy, and some of them are cool, but still. I mean Westley was cool in Buffy and all that, but he is not that cool that he needs to be in a 101 episodes of Angel. Not by my standards anyway. I don't know, he probably evolves (I hope) into and interesting guy.
And then of course there are the characters he just can't bring himself to killing. Like Faith. He apparently has unfinished business with Faith. Well we will just have to see what that evolves into. (She just waked up from the coma.)
Yeah, and I know there is this clause about when a Slayer dies one now one is "activated", but what if she is incapable to slay. Like for instance if she lies in a coma for 8 months, shouldn't a new one get activated? Or is evil to be allowed to reign until she wakes up?
But what do I know. I'm just your stupid audience!
And one more thing? What's the deal with killing Shepherd Book? Or Wash for that matter? Yeah I realize that were probably meant to die in the series as well, but why?
You could just as well kill Inara! Or Kaylee for that matter! But quite honestly if he killed Kaylee (or Willow for that matter) I would never have watched ANYTHING he made past or present EVER again!!!
But I think I will end this rant now, because I can feel myself rambling.
And in case you haven't noticed I get passionate about these kinds of thingsXP I can rant for hours on end. That is part of what makes me adorable I have been toldXP
Nightynight kiddiesXP
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)