Pet Peeves

[Sunbird]

That's not Classical 89, is it?

 

It is! I also really enjoy their Piano Puzzler segment and The Score every Saturday.

[TwiLyghtSansSparkles]

Okay, I don't know if this counts as a pet peeve, but it's been bugging me and I need to get it off my chest. 

 

In The Road to El Dorado, when the two main characters are caught accidentally stowing away on a ship to the New World, the captain is understandably angry. "The crew aboard this ship were chosen as carefully as the disciples of Christ," he says. 

 

But in the Gospels, there is no evidence that the disciples were chosen carefully at all. The selection process is the definition of informal: Jesus sees them going about their business, says, "Hey, come follow me!" and they do. Sure, Jesus could've spent some time offscreen carefully selecting the men he'd choose as his disciples, narrowing them down through a meticulous process akin to an employer choosing applicants. However, the text doesn't even hint at this. All we see is Jesus walking along, seeing men fishing or collecting taxes or what have you, and he says, "Hey, come follow me!" 

 

Sorry. This just really, really bugged me. 

[Voidus]

Okay, I don't know if this counts as a pet peeve, but it's been bugging me and I need to get it off my chest. 

 

In The Road to El Dorado, when the two main characters are caught accidentally stowing away on a ship to the New World, the captain is understandably angry. "The crew aboard this ship were chosen as carefully as the disciples of Christ," he says. 

 

But in the Gospels, there is no evidence that the disciples were chosen carefully at all. The selection process is the definition of informal: Jesus sees them going about their business, says, "Hey, come follow me!" and they do. Sure, Jesus could've spent some time offscreen carefully selecting the men he'd choose as his disciples, narrowing them down through a meticulous process akin to an employer choosing applicants. However, the text doesn't even hint at this. All we see is Jesus walking along, seeing men fishing or collecting taxes or what have you, and he says, "Hey, come follow me!" 

 

Sorry. This just really, really bugged me. 

I get that alot in sci-fi, writers who look into the science behind something just enough to pass a very brief check on google but it makes some patently ridiculous scenes.

For instance tachyons are a hypothetical particle that could travel faster than light, and in one sci-fi I saw there was this scene where they found a ship that could travel faster than light because it was made of tachyons. But tachyons are a completely different particle, you can't just make a ship out of them. They also apparently didn't read the part where it's impossible for tachyons to actually travel slower than the speed of light, yet they do and also if they did exist they'd have imaginary mass which would mess with things in ways I couldn't even begin to comprehend.

Stop trying to use science if you don't understand science, just make something up and say they have a hyperdrive or something.   

(Sorry for the rant, it's just one the things that annoys me a lot in sci-fi these days)

[TwiLyghtSansSparkles]

I get that alot in sci-fi, writers who look into the science behind something just enough to pass a very brief check on google but it makes some patently ridiculous scenes.

For instance tachyons are a hypothetical particle that could travel faster than light, and in one sci-fi I saw there was this scene where they found a ship that could travel faster than light because it was made of tachyons. But tachyons are a completely different particle, you can't just make a ship out of them. They also apparently didn't read the part where it's impossible for tachyons to actually travel slower than the speed of light, yet they do and also if they did exist they'd have imaginary mass which would mess with things in ways I couldn't even begin to comprehend.

Stop trying to use science if you don't understand science, just make something up and say they have a hyperdrive or something.   

(Sorry for the rant, it's just one the things that annoys me a lot in sci-fi these days)

 

A ship made of tachyons? Isn't that kind of like making an entire airplane out of the same material as the black box—i.e., it wouldn't work because the plane would be too heavy to fly not to mention other issues?  

[Kobold King]

A ship made of tachyons? Isn't that kind of like making an entire airplane out of the same material as the black box—i.e., it wouldn't work because the plane would be too heavy to fly not to mention other issues?

 

 

Kind of like that, but it makes about as much logical and faux-mathematical sense as "I don't like sharing my cake! Therefore I should have zero cakes, because you can't divide by zero! That'll let me have all the cake!"

[Voidus]

A ship made of tachyons? Isn't that kind of like making an entire airplane out of the same material as the black box—i.e., it wouldn't work because the plane would be too heavy to fly not to mention other issues?

Sort of, it would be more like trying to make an entire airplane out of the color blue.  

[Young Bard]

I get that alot in sci-fi, writers who look into the science behind something just enough to pass a very brief check on google but it makes some patently ridiculous scenes.

For instance tachyons are a hypothetical particle that could travel faster than light, and in one sci-fi I saw there was this scene where they found a ship that could travel faster than light because it was made of tachyons. But tachyons are a completely different particle, you can't just make a ship out of them. They also apparently didn't read the part where it's impossible for tachyons to actually travel slower than the speed of light, yet they do and also if they did exist they'd have imaginary mass which would mess with things in ways I couldn't even begin to comprehend.

Stop trying to use science if you don't understand science, just make something up and say they have a hyperdrive or something.   

(Sorry for the rant, it's just one the things that annoys me a lot in sci-fi these days)

 

Yeah, whenever I write sci-fi, I usually do this, and then give it to a friend who actually understands all the fancy terms and ask him what doesn't make sense. He'll jot a few notes down, I fix it, and go on. It's not that difficult. Even if you don't have personal experience, find someone who does. It's not that hard.

[Oversleep]

Don't know how to explain something? #justClaimItsQuantum

Because everything is better with quantum.

[Delightful]

Okay, I don't know if this counts as a pet peeve, but it's been bugging me and I need to get it off my chest.

In The Road to El Dorado, when the two main characters are caught accidentally stowing away on a ship to the New World, the captain is understandably angry. "The crew aboard this ship were chosen as carefully as the disciples of Christ," he says.

But in the Gospels, there is no evidence that the disciples were chosen carefully at all. The selection process is the definition of informal: Jesus sees them going about their business, says, "Hey, come follow me!" and they do. Sure, Jesus could've spent some time offscreen carefully selecting the men he'd choose as his disciples, narrowing them down through a meticulous process akin to an employer choosing applicants. However, the text doesn't even hint at this. All we see is Jesus walking along, seeing men fishing or collecting taxes or what have you, and he says, "Hey, come follow me!"

Sorry. This just really, really bugged me.

It's not exactly an accurate movie. If I remember correctly, the captain threatens to send them off to Cuba, but at that historical time Cuba hadn't been discovered yet or something

[Sunbird]

It's not exactly an accurate movie. If I remember correctly, the captain threatens to send them off to Cuba, but at that historical time Cuba hadn't been discovered yet or something

 

Not to mention the nonexistent language barrier. XD

[Delightful]

Oh yeah. That.

Edited April 12, 2016 by Delightful

[The Invested Beard]

Okay, I don't know if this counts as a pet peeve, but it's been bugging me and I need to get it off my chest. 

 

In The Road to El Dorado, when the two main characters are caught accidentally stowing away on a ship to the New World, the captain is understandably angry. "The crew aboard this ship were chosen as carefully as the disciples of Christ," he says. 

 

But in the Gospels, there is no evidence that the disciples were chosen carefully at all. The selection process is the definition of informal: Jesus sees them going about their business, says, "Hey, come follow me!" and they do. Sure, Jesus could've spent some time offscreen carefully selecting the men he'd choose as his disciples, narrowing them down through a meticulous process akin to an employer choosing applicants. However, the text doesn't even hint at this. All we see is Jesus walking along, seeing men fishing or collecting taxes or what have you, and he says, "Hey, come follow me!" 

 

Sorry. This just really, really bugged me. 

 

Well there are a lot of Christians that believe Jesus was very intentional in who he chose to be his disciples. The idea is that he could have chosen much more learned, prestigious religious types of the day, but instead picked out 12 average men. This has all kinds of theological implications which I can go into more detail on if you want to PM me, but that's the gist of it.

 

That being said, the quote from the movie is probably a little forced even holding to that ideology.

[Voidus]

Don't know how to explain something? #justClaimItsQuantum

Because everything is better with quantum.

The prime example. Though for that I blame pop-culture more than movies. There's way too much popularization of the term at the moment, from the self-help people who throw the term around to make them sound more scientific. 

[The Invested Beard]

The prime example. Though for that I blame pop-culture more than movies. There's way too much popularization of the term at the moment, from the self-help people who throw the term around to make them sound more scientific. 

 

That, sir, is quantum slander and I for one won't stand for it.

[Orlion Blight]

That, sir, is quantum slander and I for one won't stand for it.

Is that because you're in an energy state lower than your standing state or is your energy state actually higher?

[The Invested Beard]

Definitely lower.

[Delightful]

So sit for it?

[The Invested Beard]

So sit for it?

 

I did  say I wouldn't stand for it.

[Silverblade5]

Well there are a lot of Christians that believe Jesus was very intentional in who he chose to be his disciples. The idea is that he could have chosen much more learned, prestigious religious types of the day, but instead picked out 12 average men. This has all kinds of theological implications which I can go into more detail on if you want to PM me, but that's the gist of it.

 

That being said, the quote from the movie is probably a little forced even holding to that ideology.

I always interpreted it as the crew not being very carefully chosen.

[The Invested Beard]

I always interpreted it as the crew not being very carefully chosen.

 

Ah yes, the old switcheroo.

[TwiLyghtSansSparkles]

I always interpreted it as the crew not being very carefully chosen.

That does explain why their horse jumped ship at the first opportunity.

[BreathTaker]

*throws obscene horse gesture at crew before jumping into stormy waters after a flippin apple*

[Delightful]

*throws obscene horse gesture at crew before jumping into stormy waters after a flippin apple*

This reminds me of The Truman Show......

[Purelake Earthquake]

Okay, here's something that really grinds my gears, people who whine about grammar.  Now this could be a contentious topic because it's possible because some of these grammar issues might by other people's pet peeves.

 

Here it goes, anti-grammar-rant rant following:

 

The one that's been bothering me the most lately is the people who can't stand it if you say "I could care less."  Now, before I heard all the whining I feel like I would have been as likely to use either version of the phrase, I'm not sure it's not really a phrase I think I use often.  But now, I'm going to always make sure to say that I could care less just to stick it to the man.  A typical conversation would work something like this:

 

"I could care less"

"You mean you couldn't care less."

"I meant what I said, that's why I said it that way."

"But, that means you must care some amount."

"Congratulations, you figured it out.  Here's your ribbon."

 

I'm going to start abbreviating Could Care Less to CCL and Couldn't care less to CNCL, I have I feeling they're going to have to use them a lot

 

Now there are tow main reasons why you shouldn't have a fit about this phrase, and it's perfectly fine to use either.

I. It's an idiom, it can do what it wants.

II. It follows logic anyway

 

Okay, let's get to the meat of the logic, then.  A lot of people will say that CCL is the exact opposite of what they mean (CNCL, obviously).  First off, that is just so obnoxiously presumptive.   Secondly, the exact opposite of CNCL would be couldn't care more.  I'm going to star by breaking things down strictly logically, to do that I'll need to turn in to a numerical scale.

 

So, let's say values of care can only fall on a range from 0 through 10.  CNCL places the person's care at 0, the minimum amount.  CCL tells us Care > 0.

 

This brings us to the next complaint.  Not zero isn't really a lot of information here, and it's making the potential care more positive than it had been previously.  Now, this is where we have to step out of the strict math logic into language logic, which is full of subtlety and context.

 

CCL, doesn't convey a lot of information, until you take in context.  It may be a positive phrase, but only negligibly so.  What you're saying when you say you CCL is that you care so little that absolute zero is the best point of comparison.  There are plenty of idioms that work like this, if you say 'it could've been worse' no one feels the need to tell you that you're saying it wasn't the worst.  Now that's not going to be perfectly analogous because it's a different expression.  Essential what CCL is doing is indicating that you care very little, but twisted around so that you're presenting it with positive language.

 

One way I like to view care in this situation is that it moves along a logarithmic curve.  It's only defined at positive X, and it's got an asymptote (my spell checker says that's not a word) at the Y axis.  As you move farther left on the curve you get closer to, but can never quite reach zero care.  I think that there's always some small part of us that's vaguely interested in anything, i.e. if you really tried maybe you would be able to care less. I don't know, maybe this is just me.

 

From here a lot of detractors will say, sure I can see how it could make sense, but most people don't see it this way.  That's where you go back to Reason I.  We've accepted that the idiom makes sense and that idioms don't have to.  All the users need to know that it's an idiom which implies very little care, they don't need to know why it does that.

 

 

In the end we all know what is meant by 'could care less', and throwing a fit anytime someone says it does no one any good.  People aren't like that orange guy from Guardians of the Galaxy.  As much as you might hate it, any language spoken by humans is going to be full of ambiguity and be made needlessly confusing.  Messing with language is just a part of human nature, that's why we have things like sarcasm, human nature, and puns.

 

 

I was thinking about defending 'literally' too, but I don't have time for it, and I'm not particularly passionate about that.  (Short version: It's used as a figurative intensifier, like a lot of words.  There's no magic word that'll make you free of figurative language, it's too ingrained in how we speak.  There are fairly synonymous words that are used in the same way and no one raises an eyebrow.)

 

 

 

Could I care less about this?  Yes I could stand to care a lot less about this.

 

 

 

 

Here's another (much shorter) problem I have on a somewhat similar topic.  When people get all up in a tizzy about what an awful language English is.

 

I hear it all the time that English is by far the worst language out of all of them.  And I can't help but find myself skeptical.  Every piece I hear people write about it sites the same things.

English has homonyms.

Sometimes words that are spelled similarly use different suffixes, (taught, preached; boxes, oxen)

And maybe other similar things I can't think of right now.

 

Now this is where I'm confused.  I don't know a lot about linguistics and languages, so maybe someone can correct me here, but these hardly sound like unique problems to English (homonyms, really?).  It's possible that a lot of these people just mean to be poking fun at language in general, but a lot of them cite it as the worst language, using these things as evidence.

 

I know English has got a ton of problems and stupid quirks, but it's got a lot of points in it's favor.  Regular nouns don't have genders, adjectives don't change at all depending on tense or anything like that, there's a simple character system that matches up to the spoken language, just off the top of my head.  Also, has anyone here seen the Danish counting system, it's absolutely ridiculous.  (Here's a comic about it, there is some swearing: http://satwcomic.com/just-a-number)

 

I know there are studies and stuff about how it's supposed to be harder to learn than others, but I'm at the point where my brain just automatically edits out whenever I see someone mention a study, I just have so little faith in them.  Again, I could be wrong here, but if you google "English worst language" all you get are lists of these quirks, which I assume are not uncommon in other languages as well.

 

 

 

Anyway, I'm glad to get this off my chest, now I can stop harboring my annoyance and get on with my life.

[Zathoth]

As someone who has English as their second language: It is pretty stupid.

 

But at least it sounds cool. I've probably gone on this rant before, but you cant just throw two words together and have it sound cool in swedish. Which means that I feel really bad for the person who has to translate Brandons works to Swedish... Though it has spelling that makes sense, so that's a point for it... storm english spelling...