Welcome to the Playpen, our space for ferrety banter and whimsical snippets of things that aren't quite long enough for articles (although they might be) but that caught your eye anyway.
Because kids these days don't know what happened to Hitler?
Everyone knows what happened to Hitler. His soul got sucked into a glass cube that's now sitting on the Red Skull's mantlepiece.
And wow, I can't decide whether that Marie Antoinette book looks "so bad it's terrible", or "so bad it's awesome".
And Bear Grylls apparently blurbed this book?
ETA: The "Customers who bought this book also bought..." section includes a book that's far more WTF to me...Marie Antoinette, Serial Killer.
"A note by the author explains the truth behind the fiction and lets readers know what really became of history's greatest villains."
Because kids these days don't know what happened to Hitler?
(To be fair, while it's not brilliant, the book cover's not the worst ever, it just doesn't give me much confidence that the book's any good...)
Is this another example of people going to remarkable lengths to viral-promote something that isn't actually very good?
*Apparently @horse_ebooks used to be a genuine spam account, but the people behind the art project bought it off the owner in 2011.
Still worth it though. Sometimes a story just hits you like a brick and you need to talk about it.
(And no, it wasn't the one you're thinking about. Or that one.)
Aside from that, I've got some random horror-things for October, then that should be it for the year.
And before I toddle off to bed, something lighter: Star Trek '09 as summarized in screencaps by an excited fangirl. [spoiler]p.s. I am a member of the canon police.[/spoiler]
I think you might be right - having a two party system probably has this kind of effect on electoral discourse and iconography. I wouldn't say that electoral campaigns can't be vicious and sometimes a bit, well, exalted (or frothing at the mouth, depending on where you're standing) in France, but yeah, the perspective of having to govern in a coalition might foster a more sober and restrained political climate.
anything more enthusiastic than a slogan like the FG's "Take back the power" (without any exclamation mark, mind you) and a sober photograph of a stoic or hopeful candidate would get associated with slightly hysterical extremist propaganda of dubious respectability. I don't know if it's a general cultural thing, though.
I wonder if that's an off shoot of a two party system, because there will probably not be a situation where you have to share power oor have a coalition government. Although does that apply to France really? How does it go on the parliamentary level there, are coalitions usual, or does the relatively powerful office of president mix things up?
Find a lot of philosophical texts heavy going? There is anotter medium of discourse.
Oh sweet Jesus, now I'm having flashbacks to the Thesis of Doom - some kind of post-philosophical stress disorder? Anyway, it's not until I came across those otters that I realised just how really fucking ubiquitous the word "other" is in philosophy. Especially if you're working on the post-structuralist/deconstruction/any kind of feminist/subaltern/post-colonialist studies end of the spectrum, which I sort of do (even though I think I never want to hear the word "postmodern" again for at least ten years). So, basically, there is a high probability I will now have flashes of frolicking otters every time I read a philosophical text of any relevance whatsoever to my work. Thanks, man :)
Re: the electoral posters, I remember those in Germany being fairly on par with ours here (in France) - most of those I've seen were quite restrained, even when they were bearing the rousing slogans of the Front de Gauche (a left-wing/far-left coalition which became the vector of many hopes for change, especially amongst people my age) in 2012; I don't know if that's the case for anyone else in continental Europe, but I'd say that, here, anything more enthusiastic than a slogan like the FG's "Take back the power" (without any exclamation mark, mind you) and a sober photograph of a stoic or hopeful candidate would get associated with slightly hysterical extremist propaganda of dubious respectability. I don't know if it's a general cultural thing, though.
Seems rather tame (but very civilised) compared to this sort of thing.
But that is much less ambigious and sort of easier for the basic voter, who just needs a compact and concise picture to make a decision. In this case, for example, it is obvious that the voters best interest is to vote for the killer robot from the labour party, because they do not want to get killed by the killer robot. Plus, you get the impression that the killer robot is a new one as well, so progress, yay.
I went back and forth to Germany a fair bit on business trips recently and what struck me was how sober a lot of the political posters were - they all seemed to follow a strict model of "picture of candidate, party logo, pithy slogan", to the point where I had to look carefully to work out whose face was being promoted by which party. Seems rather tame (but very civilised) compared to this sort of thing.
This diagram nicely highlights how complicated the whole European thing is. To be honest I doubt most Brits understand half of it.
Sorry, Robinson, but your friend is full of shit.
More likely a case of garbled understanding on my part. For instance, I was the one who threw in the bit about Cameron having a "strongly anti-EU stance" - which obviously was a gross misinterpretation.
David Cameron occasionally makes Eurosceptic noises, but this is mostly a little dance he does to keep the Eurosceptic wing of the Tories off-balance (note that this wing overlaps strongly with the hardline social conservative wing and other Tory factions who think Cameron is too cuddly and soft, which is a goddamn terrifying prospect). But most of his concessions to the Eurosceptics are entirely meaningless. He has agreed to attempt to renegotiate Britain's position in the EU and then call a referendum if the Tories get a full majority after the next election, which basically translates to "I will buy you a yacht, but only if I win the lottery this week" - it's really, really hard for incumbent parties in this country to increase their proportion of the vote in elections, especially incumbents responsible for as many unpopular decisions as the Tories, especially when the major protest party is UKIP which is likely to vampire more votes from the Tories than it is from the Lib Dems or Labour, and especially when the folks who had been voting Lib Dem to protest Labour are likely to say "Well, fuck that" and go back to Labour after the Lib Dem's soft puppety weakness in the coalition. Even if by some miracle Dave does get his majority, it's been made fairly clear that his attention is to lobby for the UK to stay in Europe - as Labour and the Lib Dems are nigh-certain to do - so you'll have a strong "Yes to the membership" campaign where most UK politicians will actually be working to present the benefits of EU membership, which they're extremely slack about doing usually.
People like to gripe about the EU, but there's a long space between that and being willing to vote for an exit, especially when referendum turnout in this country tends to be low and when there'll be months of promotion of staying in and cartoon characters like UKIP representing the "No to the EU" campaign. And it's notable that the bits of the media which really push discontent with the EU tend to be the ones like the Daily Express - the Diana conspiracy-obsessed rag which regularly makes the Daily Mail seem wishy-washy and moderate.
It runs entirely against my grain to be defending Cameron but the idea that he has a "strongly anti-EU stance" is sustainable only if you don't actually pay attention to what he's saying and who he's saying it to and what strong anti-EU stances actually look like.
Sorry, Robinson, but your friend is full of shit.
Currently, the EU is under a coalition government between the center-right Conservative (or Tory) and the center-left Liberal Democratic (or Lib Dem) Parties, which respectively comprise the older and younger siblings in the coalition.
I didn't hear the EU talked about a whole lot while I was in London, but a British friend of mine was on a podcast a couple of months ago with a US journalist where he talked about (among other things) the EU. According to him, at this point more than 50% of Brits want out of the EU, which probably helps explain why the Conservative Prime Minister feels empowered to take a strongly anti-EU stance.
My friend didn't go into exactly why Brits in general or the Tories in particular are against the EU at that point, but elsewhere he brought up a few different issues. For one, he says, Britain tends to be "somewhat misanthropic and distrustful of its counterparts on the continent" (as explanation for why the UK hasn't signed onto the Schengen Treaty). The other issues he identified were sovereignty (not wanting other countries messing about in internal UK affairs, plus the fact that, according to him, the EU is undemocratic because the elected EU parliament is "restricted purely to voting on legislation which they themselves do not write" and therefore they have very little real control); and economy (Britain insisted on retaining the pound as opposed to adopting the euro, and the pound has retained much of its strength over the past five years - it's apparently accepted generally that if Britain hadn't retained the pound, it would now be in a position analogous to that of Cyprus. So basically, many Brits view the EU economically as a sinking ship. and figure they're better off going it alone).
All three issues have some strongly nationalist, inward-looking, "Britain first!" dimensions, which would naturally appeal to a center-right party like the Conservatives.
I must say though, the US two-parties-and-never-the-two-shall-meet system, for all its bombastic campaigns, seems at the same time depressing ... and a bit boring
It gets even more depressing when you consider that even the ~50% of voters (which is significantly less than 50% of the population eligible to vote, even before you factor in the increased fad for purging voter rolls) often have their wishes disregarded by the party in power. As best I can tell, most Americans oppose continued war, austerity measures, and probably domestic spying as well, but none of that has stopped Obama and the Democrats. Really, though, from what I've seen of other countries' electoral systems (especially the UK's), it doesn't seem like our lot is, in the end, all that much worse.
Something I've realized recently is that the two-party system, for all its restrictions on freedom of choice, does prevent situations like the one in the UK with the ruling party getting less than 50% of the votes but still taking power just on the strength of winning a plurality. I'm pretty sure I've heard that was how Thatcher managed to remain Prime Minister for so long, despite being highly unpopular by the end.
As for boring, I dunno, I find the bombast and all the desperate attempts by the two parties and the mainstream media to make out that the essential differences between the two are matters of kind rather than degree make things quite lively (overly so, in election season, for my personal tastes - the US may have ditched the bread by and large, but it's gone to town as far as circuses are concerned).
Then again, the only other system I can really compare it to is Britain, which has exactly one more major party than the US; two of its major parties (Labour and the Lib-Dems, both broadly analogous to the Democrats in the US) are mostly indistinguishable at first glance, and the difference between either one of them and the third (Conservative) party is no more pronounced than between the Democrats and the Republicans in the States. So maybe I'm just missing out on what a proper multi-party political dust-up looks like.
And we do morally owe the world, even if maybe not Greece in particular.
I guess I would go along with this - but not, I would argue, any more than other major powers like the US, Britain, Russia, Belgium, France, etc. all of which also have numerous nasty blots on their records.
With the baby-carrier scenario - I'm hampered by frankly being incapable of truly understanding a dislike of / uninterest in having children (no doubt helped by the fact that biologically speaking, I am exempt from taking on the really hard role), so I'm sure that skews my perceptions to some extent.
But moving away from the scenario where the female-coded baby-carrier desperately wants to have children, I decided for a couple of reasons that I didn't want to go to the opposite extreme of having them actively not want to have children. I like the idea of having them be mostly ambivalent; not strongly wanting children for their own sake, but when somebody else brings up the idea (with the understanding that it doesn't necessarily need to be them) and knowing they'd have at least one other person to help with the bringing up process, happy enough to do that. I think there is a significant difference between that and "highly desires children" which could be neat to explore.
I did think it would be good to have an extra reason, though, especially if I don't end up going the artificial wombs route - as you say, it's a big undertaking for the baby-carrier character. So I threw in the "I want to grow the perfect lab partner" bit as an added incentive, which I imagine eventually overtaking the "I am broadly positive in a low-key way about the idea of having children for their own sake" motivation. I think I could produce a rather tragic scenario of the baby-carrier character loving their kids on some level (though not to the extent that someone who enthusiastically wants to have kids), but having that feeling overshadowed by disappointment by not being able to mold them into the perfect assistants.
Thanks for the info on IVF. I admit I haven't studied artificially induced pregnancy in any sort of detail and essentially put in the first thing that popped into my head. I will, of course, devote more research to the subject when and if I get around to turning the idea into an actual story.
And yes, I'm aware people (including asexuals) have sex outside their orientation for various reasons. Again, I may just be showing my ignorance here, but I figured the non-baby-carrying character would prefer not to do that if it turns out it can be avoided without too much hassle. I guess I'll see where my research and the feel of the story take me on that point.
Alternatively, I could just have them have sex for some reason (which I think would also entail research to make it plausible), the baby-carrier character winds up pregnant, and chooses not to abort. Either way can work, I guess.
Dan: If you select the "I may have killed more people than I actually avenged" option, you get an achievement called "Acknowledged Ludonarrative Dissonance."
Oh, that's cute.