Sarcasm

Pet Peeves

2,610 posts in this topic

Spoilered for vaguely political things:

Right now? When the word "appropriation" is applied to everything.

Appropriation isn't a bad term. I mean, the meaning is bad, but am I upset the term exists? Not at all. I'm glad it does. Naming things like that is the first step toward raising awareness, and raising awareness is the first step toward curbing the problem.

But now, the BBC is running a story about "Is it OK for White People to Have Dreadlocks?" The term "cultural appropriation" was used.

I'm sorry, but I really feel like using "appropriation" to describe a white person with dreadlocks cheapens the term. And for what? It's a white guy in dreads. They exist on every college campus in the US, and in a couple of high schools at least. Chances are they'll cut those things off before they're thirty. And, again, it's a hairstyle. Can we talk about problems that actually matter? There are plenty of worse things in the world than a white guy with dreads, and the more time we spend on his choice of hairstyle, the less time we'll have for those problems.

so I think the issue is that it's whatever and cool when white people get dreads, but apparently African American women, who's hair is easiest managed by dreads or cornrows get told they can't wear their hair like that to work because it "looks unprofessional" and that's ridiculous.such was an opinion I read on the internet once.

I had a particular teacher who's class I could always reading. He was dead boring so it was great.

Other classes I would get bored and ask annoying questions constantly when I couldn't read. (It didn't help, I was still bored).

But thankfully those classes were in the minority.

It shouldnt be "people below the bell curve need extra attention". It should be "anyone not in/near the middle of the bell curve needs extra".

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is insane to me.

 

Of course, I'm a really, really poor litmus test of this sort of thing, because I was that kid who was always reading in class during the lesson, and driving the teachers nuts because no matter what question they tried to catch me out with, I'd always know the answer.  And so they'd eventually throw their hands up and let me get away with it.

 

This was a terrible idea on their part.

 

I was reading because I was bored.  So much of school was rehashing old material, and I was that kid who didn't need to be taught something more than once to get it.  And on those occasions when there would be new stuff, great!  I'd pay attention for the first run-through, get it, and then check out again because they had to drill it into everyone else's heads.  So I learned at a very early age that I didn't need to put any real effort forth to learn things because it was all so easy.

 

What I needed was an accelerated learning track, but I was stuck in a small, rural school that didn't have the resources.  And heck, even in larger schools, so many teachers dismiss the gifted kids as "eh, they're okay, 'cause they're learning everything."

 

They're not OK.

 

They're not even close to OK.

 

My first round of college wound up kicking my chull because I had absolutely no idea how to study.  I'd never had to do it before, so it was all just some sort of vague concept for me.  And I still thought it didn't apply to me, until suddenly it did, and I had absolutely no idea what to do about it.  So I wound up washing out due to being in no way prepared for any of it.

 

And I was one of the lucky ones.

 

So many gifted kids drop out of high school.  They're bored, they're ostracized, they're aimless, and nobody seems to know what to do with them.  They ought to be getting specialized educational intervention the same as learning disabled kids do (and news flash:  some kids with learning disabilities are also gifted; schools have even less idea of what to do with them).  But because they're "smart" nobody thinks to do anything with them.  The lucky ones get straight A's and zip through and run into a brick wall when they get into college.  The unlucky ones lose interest and drop out, maybe wind up in jail or overdosed or outright suicide, and people shake their heads and call them "troubled" without ever giving any thought as to how they're the ones that caused those troubles.

 

We're losing our best and brightest in droves, and all anyone at the top seems to want to do is throw in more standardized testing with one hand and gut all of the funding for what education system we have left with the other.

 

 

ETA:  Sorry, this sorta turned into a soapbox rant.  :unsure:

I can relate. For my whole life I didn't need to study more than the night before... Well, for my highschool final exams I did study physics for a week or two, cause I was pretty bad at it, but ended up with 52% on the higher difficulty, so quite good. I didn't study a single second for math, though. And I ended up acing it (95% on normal, 88% on higher... And I was disappointed with it.). Being in a very good school made me used to being required to study, cause you know, you have to do assignments and tests and you study quite regularly... Well, math I did pick up on the run, but the sheer number of math assignments made me remember all that knowledge.

Then I hit university and the first semester I spent playing games. Cause most the things I knew already and what I didn't know, I learned instantly.

But then the second semester was hard. We were thrown in at the deep end. You see, the rest of the students learned how to study because the first semester was hard for them and they were prepared for what's coming. I wasn't. I barely passed my courses (and failed one).

Then the third semester required regular studying and I still thought I could do things at the last possible moments. I failed three courses.

Right now it's fourth semester and it's gonna be as bas as the third or even worse.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is insane to me.

 

Of course, I'm a really, really poor litmus test of this sort of thing, because I was that kid who was always reading in class during the lesson, and driving the teachers nuts because no matter what question they tried to catch me out with, I'd always know the answer.  And so they'd eventually throw their hands up and let me get away with it.

 

This was a terrible idea on their part.

 

I was reading because I was bored.  So much of school was rehashing old material, and I was that kid who didn't need to be taught something more than once to get it.  And on those occasions when there would be new stuff, great!  I'd pay attention for the first run-through, get it, and then check out again because they had to drill it into everyone else's heads.  So I learned at a very early age that I didn't need to put any real effort forth to learn things because it was all so easy.

 

What I needed was an accelerated learning track, but I was stuck in a small, rural school that didn't have the resources.  And heck, even in larger schools, so many teachers dismiss the gifted kids as "eh, they're okay, 'cause they're learning everything."

 

They're not OK.

 

They're not even close to OK.

 

My first round of college wound up kicking my chull because I had absolutely no idea how to study.  I'd never had to do it before, so it was all just some sort of vague concept for me.  And I still thought it didn't apply to me, until suddenly it did, and I had absolutely no idea what to do about it.  So I wound up washing out due to being in no way prepared for any of it.

 

And I was one of the lucky ones.

 

So many gifted kids drop out of high school.  They're bored, they're ostracized, they're aimless, and nobody seems to know what to do with them.  They ought to be getting specialized educational intervention the same as learning disabled kids do (and news flash:  some kids with learning disabilities are also gifted; schools have even less idea of what to do with them).  But because they're "smart" nobody thinks to do anything with them.  The lucky ones get straight A's and zip through and run into a brick wall when they get into college.  The unlucky ones lose interest and drop out, maybe wind up in jail or overdosed or outright suicide, and people shake their heads and call them "troubled" without ever giving any thought as to how they're the ones that caused those troubles.

 

We're losing our best and brightest in droves, and all anyone at the top seems to want to do is throw in more standardized testing with one hand and gut all of the funding for what education system we have left with the other.

 

 

ETA:  Sorry, this sorta turned into a soapbox rant.  :unsure:

Spoilered for length and political-ness.

I get that. Where I'm from, similar things happened recently.

So, there was this new Minister of Education who wanted to "revolutionize the system". Now, that might not be such a bad thing. The system isn't perfect and could stand to be improved. However, instead of optimizing it, he began to cater to the less gifted students. Why is this a problem, you may ask. Well, he did this by limiting the gifted students. He literally said that students were not ALLOWED to take more than a certain amount of classes. He decided to equalize the youth of the entire country by bringing them all down to the same level. There are no words to describe this kind of idiocy.

You would think he would know better, considering he was the ONLY Minister of Education in history to have actually been a teacher in the past.

Luckily, I was already too far into the old program for him to affect me and he was replaced by someone far more competent since (he has his hands full now, trying to undo all the harm his predecessor caused). But my sister had the misfortune to be in the ONE year that was affected by his ridiculous laws.

Anyway, sorry I caught the rant bug from Kaymyth. I just kinda needed to vent about this.

 

When it comes to schools, the people at the top don't know crem about helping students. They say students need to be achieving more, that we're falling behind the rest of the world. So what do they do? Implement more standardized testing. And this wouldn't be so bad if they knew how to write a decent test, but they don't. 

 

When I was in high school, the government in all its wisdom decided that every sophomore had to pass the Washington Assessment of Student Learning, or WASL, to graduate. Three portions—reading, writing, and math—were required; the science portion was still in its beta form, so they gave it to students but told them they didn't need to pass it to graduate. Some students just doodled in the essay portions, but I was one of those that decided to give the science WASL my best shot. Here's an actual question from that test: 

 

John walks to school one day and discovers the parking lot is empty. What is the most likely cause? 

 

A. John is early.

B. The school is closed for a holiday. 

C. Everyone decided to park in the back lot. 

D. The parking lot is being resurfaced. 

 

That's it. That's the question. With that information, students are expected to give one of any equally likely answers to a very vague question. And the questions on the other three portions were only marginally better; I got a high score on both the reading and writing portions, but missed passing the math portion by eight points. And since it was required, my parents made me take summer school so I could retake the test at the end of the summer. Instead of going to camp with my friends, I sat in a room with the most annoying people on the planet, who spent eight weeks beatboxing into plastic bottles and irritating my misophonia—so that I could take a stupid test and barely pass. 

 

Then, in my junior year, the government finally listened to parents and teachers saying the WASL sucked….and removed it as a graduation requirement. So, yeah, I had an entire summer ruined for nothing. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a particular teacher who's class I could always reading. He was dead boring so it was great.

Other classes I would get bored and ask annoying questions constantly when I couldn't read. (It didn't help, I was still bored).

But thankfully those classes were in the minority.

It shouldnt be "people below the bell curve need extra attention". It should be "anyone not in/near the middle of the bell curve needs extra".

 

Yeah.  Unfortunately with all of the latest pushes to try and bring the US up to standard with the rest of the world, those above the bell curve kids are getting even more shafted. 

 

I can relate. For my whole life I didn't need to study more than the night before... Well, for my highschool final exams I did study physics for a week or two, cause I was pretty bad at it, but ended up with 52% on the higher difficulty, so quite good. I didn't study a single second for math, though. And I ended up acing it (95% on normal, 88% on higher... And I was disappointed with it.). Being in a very good school made me used to being required to study, cause you know, you have to do assignments and tests and you study quite regularly... Well, math I did pick up on the run, but the sheer number of math assignments made me remember all that knowledge.

Then I hit university and the first semester I spent playing games. Cause most the things I knew already and what I didn't know, I learned instantly.

But then the second semester was hard. We were thrown in at the deep end. You see, the rest of the students learned how to study because the first semester was hard for them and they were prepared for what's coming. I wasn't. I barely passed my courses (and failed one).

Then the third semester required regular studying and I still thought I could do things at the last possible moments. I failed three courses.

Right now it's fourth semester and it's gonna be as bas as the third or even worse.

 

I did wind up having to figure out how to do it just to pass Music History.  But I had to have help from fellow classmates to do it.  I'm still a bit fuzzy on how it all works, 'cause I'm usually such an information sponge that it doesn't take much effort for me to learn new things.  And I still remember things from ages past.  I've had more than one conversation at work that has gone like this:

 

Them:  *talking about something*

 

Me:  "Oh, <insert apparently-esoteric knowledge here>."

 

Them:  "How do you KNOW that?!"

 

Me:  "How do you NOT know?  I...learned it in high school history.  Didn't everybody?"

 

Them:  "Rosemary, normal people don't remember what they learned in high school history!"

 

Me:  :blink:

 

When it comes to schools, the people at the top don't know crem about helping students. They say students need to be achieving more, that we're falling behind the rest of the world. So what do they do? Implement more standardized testing. And this wouldn't be so bad if they knew how to write a decent test, but they don't. 

 

When I was in high school, the government in all its wisdom decided that every sophomore had to pass the Washington Assessment of Student Learning, or WASL, to graduate. Three portions—reading, writing, and math—were required; the science portion was still in its beta form, so they gave it to students but told them they didn't need to pass it to graduate. Some students just doodled in the essay portions, but I was one of those that decided to give the science WASL my best shot. Here's an actual question from that test: 

 

John walks to school one day and discovers the parking lot is empty. What is the most likely cause? 

 

A. John is early.

B. The school is closed for a holiday. 

C. Everyone decided to park in the back lot. 

D. The parking lot is being resurfaced. 

 

That's it. That's the question. With that information, students are expected to give one of any equally likely answers to a very vague question. And the questions on the other three portions were only marginally better; I got a high score on both the reading and writing portions, but missed passing the math portion by eight points. And since it was required, my parents made me take summer school so I could retake the test at the end of the summer. Instead of going to camp with my friends, I sat in a room with the most annoying people on the planet, who spent eight weeks beatboxing into plastic bottles and irritating my misophonia—so that I could take a stupid test and barely pass. 

 

Then, in my junior year, the government finally listened to parents and teachers saying the WASL sucked….and removed it as a graduation requirement. So, yeah, I had an entire summer ruined for nothing. 

 

I was one of those really annoying kids who did really well on standardized tests, but that sounds like something even I would've had trouble with.  That question is beyond stupid.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meep... In my defense... I only use it out doors or in my own house. I smoke and "vape" (I hate that term its so storming pretentious) but if I'm inside a public place I believe it's rude. Even out doors I still try to avoid doing it when I'm in a group. On the other hand, if I walk away politely to get my nicotene fix, for the love of God don't walk near me and start bitching. I walked away to not be around people so I don't bother them so don't bother me. I know it's unhealthy I know there's probably some unknown form of badness it'll give me but please... Let me do my own thing. When I was only smoking I was smoking at least a pack a day, now I almost soley use my ecig and smoke when I'm drinking. I don't stink anymore, my vapor smells like dragonfruit and pomegranate instead of smoke and I'm a generally pleasant person to be around when I have obscene amounts of caffein and nicotene in my system... Not so much when I dont. /end defensive rant. I get what you guys are saying though, the chulls that do it when theres a lot of people around for the sole purpose of bothering them need punched in the squibblies. I love the huge clouds, I feel like a fog machine but please, take it outside.

You're much more reasonable. I don't mind at all.

You have to understand, my dad was/is a smoker and would smoke inside. So my hatred of smoke has been crafted over 18 years.

My dislike of ecigarettes (though I hate that term. This is not like email to mail) comes from me going on a date with a girl who I thought I liked, but she was just so insistent on vaping and she was convinced there were no adverse health effects. She even had the idea to ask, when we were at dinner, why she couldn't vape there. I wanted to punch her in the face. Needless to say, did not go on another date with her.

You're totally different there. And thank you for avoiding others when outside, it is seriously very appreciated.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incidentally, as a former vaper - whenever you see someone vaping and blowing big clouds of it, they're doing it wrong.  All that you see there would normally condense in the lungs.  When they exhale, there should be basically nothing visible.  Some of 'em, especially the ones who buy the giant metal devices with pointless rings all over 'em, burn too much liquid too quickly so they can imitate smokers.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And let's be fair here, e-cigarettes don't produce smoke, they are using plant based or some other form of glycerol/glycol and produce a vapor or fine mist. This is the equivalent of inhaling the stuff that comes out of a fog machine. Now there aren't really many studies yet on how unhealthy that is, but I can assure you that it's gotta be less damaging than smoke.

 

I'm not really saying this to defend one side or the other, I just like factual information to be present at every debate. I will admit the pretentiousness of many "vapers" is so so dumb, but to combat the physical aspect of cigarette addiction I don't find this too appalling. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If nicotine is a carcinogen, the vapor has nicotine in it. That means any sort of adverse effects of second hand smoke attributable to nicotine is in vapor as well. This is because your body does not come close to absorbing all the nicotine in smoke or vapor (if it did, chain smokers would be doing like flies, as the calculation is that 70 mg of nicotine in the body is all it takes to kill whatever the standard man is in these measurements).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If nicotine is a carcinogen, the vapor has nicotine in it. That means any sort of adverse effects of second hand smoke attributable to nicotine is in vapor as well. This is because your body does not come close to absorbing all the nicotine in smoke or vapor (if it did, chain smokers would be doing like flies, as the calculation is that 70 mg of nicotine in the body is all it takes to kill whatever the standard man is in these measurements).

 

The big question there is if. There are no real signs or studies proving that nicotine is a carcinogen. Sure it's super addictive, but cancer causing? No science to back that up that I'm aware of.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The big question there is if. There are no real signs or studies proving that nicotine is a carcinogen. Sure it's super addictive, but cancer causing? No science to back that up that I'm aware of.

Not entirely accurate, though it does hit on a valid point. Though there is doubt if it is a main driver in lung cancer, there are indications that it can contribute to mouth cancer (which should surprise no one) and pancreatic cancer.

And though it may not cause the cancers we normally associate with smoking, it does "promote" cancer, or make it worse.

Edited by Orlion Determined
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not entirely accurate, though it does hit on a valid point. Though there is doubt if it is a main driver in lung cancer, there are indications that it can contribute to mouth cancer (which should surprise no one) and pancreatic cancer.

And though it may not cause the cancers we normally associate with smoking, it does "promote" cancer, or make it worse.

 

That's an important distinction to make though. Promote in this case means it can accelerate cancer growth that is already there. It does not mean it can cause cancer. So really e-cigs would only be detrimental if you already had cancer. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I remember, the cancerogenic qualities of cigarettes come from the Mendeleyev table that it's in. Asbestos, that kind of stuff.

But I remember nothing about nicotine being cancerogenic. And that would be where most of ecigarettes advantages come from, from NOT having all these harmful elements regular smokes have.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking into it more, it appears that tobacco and tobacco smoke are considered carcinogenic. I was conflating them with mere nicotine.

My pet peeve still persists, particularly if you vape in a bookstore! :P

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fully admit I am very biased against tobacco products, regardless of their form. It isn't incredibly justified with respect to vaping, but meh. People can make their decisions; I don't have to like said decisions :)

I am currently annoyed by the "VapeNation" meme. Yes, because tobacco companies really need your free advertising. Good work. Sigh.

Also, from the earlier conversation about standardized testing, what the crap, Twi. That's insane. That test question is ill-posed on the best day. I could write them a stern letter with a university letterhead on the stupidity of such a question, if you like.

Standardized tests don't get much better. The GRE--think the SAT for incoming grad students--is pretty stupid. (Not as stupid as the test question you described, but pretty dumb.) When I took the GRE, literally none of the math I did in my entire undergrad was even on the test. It was stupid logic puzzles, mostly. It might amuse you to know that actually did slightly better on my English portion than my math portion of my GRE. Remember: I have a Master's degree in Mathematics. Freaking worthless test.

I had a girl come into my university's math learning center and I helped her with the math GRE. Turns out after two years of graduate school and two years of full time teaching mathematics, I can in fact answer the stupid test questions--finally. Hilariously, this girl's study guide had solutions that were definitively wrong.

Happy test taking! They are worst.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Morning talk radio shows.

I didn't listen to the radio before getting my own place, but I got one so Bruce won't sit in silence every time I leave the house. It's turned out to be nice when I'm there, too, since it keeps things from getting too quiet. I've heard a grand total of two mornings' worth of talk shows, and I'm already sick of them. One show on the classic rock station is hosted by two guys who seem to think they're being edgy and hilariously offensive, but I just find them sophomoric and irritating. The other show on a rock station is hosted by three people who spent--no joke--the better part of an hour discussing whether or not it was a faux pas to wear clothes you just bought out of the store.

And you can't escape them. You can't just go back to the music. On every station, there are annoying jocks talking about nothing and trying to offend the public. They're everywhere.

Edited by TwiLyghtSansSparkles
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you plug your computer to the radio and listen to something online? Make some YouTube/Spotify/iTunes playlist or listen to an on-line radio?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you plug your computer to the radio and listen to something online? Make some YouTube/Spotify/iTunes playlist or listen to an on-line radio?

 

I could, but I don't like the idea of leaving my laptop on and out while I'm away, and the volume on my computer never gets very loud anyhow. 

 

NPR radio is your friend :)

 

I'll have to figure out what the local station is and just turn that on in the mornings. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Morning talk radio shows.

I didn't listen to the radio before getting my own place, but I got one so Bruce won't sit in silence every time I leave the house. It's turned out to be nice when I'm there, too, since it keeps things from getting too quiet. I've heard a grand total of two mornings' worth of talk shows, and I'm already sick of them. One show on the classic rock station is hosted by two guys who seem to think they're being edgy and hilariously offensive, but I just find them sophomoric and irritating. The other show on a rock station is hosted by three people who spent--no joke--the better part of an hour discussing whether or not it was a faux pas to wear clothes you just bought out of the store.

And you can't escape them. You can't just go back to the music. On every station, there are annoying jocks talking about nothing and trying to offend the public. They're everywhere.

I agree whole heartedly. I love both those stations but can't stand the morning shows. The country station used to have a pretty decent show but I don't know anymore.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Growing up, I use to listen to a rock station after school. Then one day, they started having one of those stupid talk shows from two to eight. No music, just stupid people saying stupid things and laughing their stupid laughs (what percentage of these shows are just the host laughing at how clever they are, any way?)

I never trusted radio again after that.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could, but I don't like the idea of leaving my laptop on and out while I'm away, and the volume on my computer never gets very loud anyhow. 

 

 

I'll have to figure out what the local station is and just turn that on in the mornings. 

 

A lot of radios now have USB ports on them.  So you can make a thumb drive full of all of your favorite music, plug it in, and set it to Random.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or, if you can pick up an auxiliary cord, you can directly plug your phone in.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am fortunate enough to have a local classical music station that doesn't run ads because it's supported mostly by donations. Every once in a while one of the hosts will give a brief shout-out to their financial supporters, but that's far less obnoxious than the kind of ads that most radio stations play. A few times a week the hosts will spend an hour in the afternoon talking with a performer or composer, but usually that's broken up by live performances during the hour, so it's not really a talk show. Plus the stuff they talk about is music-related and therefore actually interesting.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree whole heartedly. I love both those stations but can't stand the morning shows. The country station used to have a pretty decent show but I don't know anymore.

Accidental downvote please fix

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Accidental downvote please fix

Fixed. :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.