Christmas time is a broadly horrible time of year. Horrible decorations, horrible music, horrible gifts that smell remarkably of "that'll do". All these things add to the horror show that is this time of year. Yet there is one area that really gets on my proverbial 'tits', and that is the area of Christmas specific adverts.
These adverts tend to suggest unlikely events such as familial bliss around the Christmas tree or of unbridled joy on receiving gift vouchers. But, as reprehensible a lie as these things are, they are not the true source of my christmas advert ire. That is reserved for 'fragrance' adverts, even though the adverts are not per se christmas ones.
In any normal advertising meeting, the people from the company in question would come to the advertisers with a product; explain what the product does; the demographic they wish to appeal to; and the sort of tenor the advert should have. This cannot be the same for smells. Television is a visual and audio media thus appealing to our senses of sight and hearing, leaving out smell and touch (unless the advert is somewhat pornographic or involves Nigella Lawson licking her fingers). Thus to convey something that is olfactory in a form of media that is not, is an impossible task. An impossible task that they fail at every time.
But why the dislike? They are just trying to sell their product in a crowded marketplace, so why shouldn't they 'push the boat out' like some smelly version of the lifeboat men? Again I return to the adverts themselves and their similar content. They all have sexual undertones of some variety, they all use infeasibly attractive individuals and they all leave people heavily confused as to what it is they have just seen. 'Who is that woman draped over a car?' 'Why is she standing on the edge of a building?' 'Who's that broody gentleman heading in her direction?' 'Did I just witness a sexual act for 3-4 seconds at 4 in the afternoon?' They leave you with questions that for a second just confuse your brain and then later just annoy you that you even had to think of it.
They are trying to sell an idea of a brand that they have built around a smell. So what they end up doing is trying to sell is a pot of smelly fluid, based on an idea of what that smell should make you feel like and think of through the medium of a 30 second advert that tries to get this entirely constructed idea across to an audience of people who can't smell. Don't know why they bother really.
So in short, if anyone was thinking of getting me 'eau de toilette' for Christmas, don't buy it based on anything other than value for money and your own nostrils. And by the way, no, just because it's in French does not make 'toilet water' sound any more appealing to throwing about my person. Anyway, back to my humbugs...
Wednesday 1 December 2010
Tuesday 12 October 2010
I like Holism: Mis-Use of Words as Explained by a Grammar Nazi
Here are two statements;
"I hate new age therapies. I hate the way they rely on misinformation, ignorance and lies in order to sell their snake oil. I hate the way they pretend to offer answers when in fact they have vague nonsenses. They are experts of nothing and, simply put, I find them broadly repulsive."
"I like Holism. The inclusive nature of holistic thought appeals to me. I like the way it draws things together to provide overarching answers that other areas may struggle with. I'm not an expert in the field but, simply put, the thought of it appeals to me."
These statements should not appear mutually exclusive, yet to the eyes of many they would. Most people would associate the word 'holistic' with the word 'therapy' or (annoyingly) 'medicine', and think of it as some sort of inclusive technique attempting, on its better side, to treat the person instead of the condition. As a result of this, some may see 'holistic' and think of it, at its worst, as the antidote and alternative to science based treatments. However, even if the word has taken on new meaning, its roots are quite different to this understanding.
Holism is a branch of physics. Physics being the most pure sciencsy of the scienciest sciences. As far as I understand it, which admittedly is not very much, its a branch of physics concerned with broad explanations and unifying theories rather than differentiating theories, such as that of the quantum. Regrettably its not the branch of physics concerned with what wanking does to your chakra.
Though meanings of words change over time along with pronunciations and connotations, the root of a word remains and that root retains the same meaning. Misunderstanding the root can lead to misunderstandings in discussion, sometimes with very rude consequences. This is usually done by accident of course, like when my Dad used to refer to me as a 'berk' not realising it was short for 'berkley hunt', which is cockney rhyming slang for something. In the case of holism the root can be seen to be in direct conflict with the new meaning 'holistic' has taken on. This is particularly pertinent as 'holism' is still an active branch of physics.
But why do I have a problem with this usage? Does it really matter if other people want to use this word to mean something else? Why should I care? Its the ignorance that annoys me. Just a quick wikipedia search and they're done. Lazy bastards. Anyway, back to my thesis...
"I hate new age therapies. I hate the way they rely on misinformation, ignorance and lies in order to sell their snake oil. I hate the way they pretend to offer answers when in fact they have vague nonsenses. They are experts of nothing and, simply put, I find them broadly repulsive."
"I like Holism. The inclusive nature of holistic thought appeals to me. I like the way it draws things together to provide overarching answers that other areas may struggle with. I'm not an expert in the field but, simply put, the thought of it appeals to me."
These statements should not appear mutually exclusive, yet to the eyes of many they would. Most people would associate the word 'holistic' with the word 'therapy' or (annoyingly) 'medicine', and think of it as some sort of inclusive technique attempting, on its better side, to treat the person instead of the condition. As a result of this, some may see 'holistic' and think of it, at its worst, as the antidote and alternative to science based treatments. However, even if the word has taken on new meaning, its roots are quite different to this understanding.
Holism is a branch of physics. Physics being the most pure sciencsy of the scienciest sciences. As far as I understand it, which admittedly is not very much, its a branch of physics concerned with broad explanations and unifying theories rather than differentiating theories, such as that of the quantum. Regrettably its not the branch of physics concerned with what wanking does to your chakra.
Though meanings of words change over time along with pronunciations and connotations, the root of a word remains and that root retains the same meaning. Misunderstanding the root can lead to misunderstandings in discussion, sometimes with very rude consequences. This is usually done by accident of course, like when my Dad used to refer to me as a 'berk' not realising it was short for 'berkley hunt', which is cockney rhyming slang for something. In the case of holism the root can be seen to be in direct conflict with the new meaning 'holistic' has taken on. This is particularly pertinent as 'holism' is still an active branch of physics.
But why do I have a problem with this usage? Does it really matter if other people want to use this word to mean something else? Why should I care? Its the ignorance that annoys me. Just a quick wikipedia search and they're done. Lazy bastards. Anyway, back to my thesis...
Thursday 16 September 2010
Secular Britain: The 3rd World vs The Real World
First thing's first. The pope is a doddery old man. Anyone watching the footage of the shambling elderly virgin arriving in Edinburgh today could not help but see the frail human being that greeted the crowds of people lining the streets. I say crowds, I mean the 9 or 10 people that were lining the route the pope took before he got to the centre of the city... possibly they had just stopped while walking the dog ("Och, Agnes. Shall we wave at the pope?" "Aye Angus. Is nae bother"). This poor, frail, mentally spent individual could not help but inspire sympathy, were it not for the nasty nature of his theology and his church teachings as a whole.
To take but a few example of this reprehensible human being's twisted thinkings, he has spoken of condoms as "increasing the threat of HIV" in Africa and elsewhere. The evidence does not support his view, it refutes it. He has suggested that islam brought nothing new to the world, other than evil. The evidence suggests that, particularly historically the evilness can be considered as evenly shared and the social and scientific advances of medieval islam were streets ahead of medieval Europe. He has also suggested that the march of secularism can only be bad for the world. The reverse is evidential in the progress gained through the secular enlightenment and its guiding principles. This demonstrates that the pope, or Darth Ratzinger as I prefer to call him, fits into that group of people who believe things in spite of the evidence. But its more than that. Popes and cardinals have a very strange idea of what evidence is. This can lead them to see attacks on their religious teachings as tests from the sky fairy and not a reason to change their mind.
Just prior to the popes arrival, one of his underlings (or 'catholics' as they're also known) suggested that being in Britain was like being in a third world country. His evidence for this was the existence (apparently) of "aggressive atheism" here. We can forgive his miss-use of the English language (poetically, if not grammatically, as he should have said secularism) as the chap was a German cardinal and his remarks were translated. What I cannot forgive is that a man who is part of a church that so often espouses its charity works in poor nations can confuse a developed western (semi) democracy with a poor or 'unaligned' country due to the evidence of there being famous atheists here. Perhaps living in all of that opulent luxury has warped his view of reality. But the warping of reality is the very raison d'etres of the vatican.
It is this warped reality that underpins the entirety of the catholic church as a structure and what allows the pope and his cardinals not to blink when they offer up wildly contradictory or ill-informed edicts and rulings. A warped reality allows them, even with such a poor understanding of real life, to rule against condoms, abortion, and family planning in general while hiding. protecting and moving rapist priests. A warped concept of moral absolutism allows them to tell other people that they not only should not do things that come naturally to them but also that they will suffer eternally if they do it. Even the imaginary heat of hell is strong enough to warp the proverbial wood of the catholic mind.
The warped hive mind that is the catholic church anointed Ratzinger in his 70's and the warped world in which his mind matured has spewed forth in a number of ridiculous and often vile speeches and teachings he has given as pope. The madness is endemic within the cardinals and priests of the holy see (which apparently is not a box of saint's eyes, nor is it an ocean with gaps in it) and will not end when this pope's frame dodders its last. If only they lived in the real world and not in some fantasy land, they might have some understanding of what a 'third world' country actually is. Then the good that the catholic charities do wouldn't be hamstrung and overridden by the evil spewing of their overlords.
To take but a few example of this reprehensible human being's twisted thinkings, he has spoken of condoms as "increasing the threat of HIV" in Africa and elsewhere. The evidence does not support his view, it refutes it. He has suggested that islam brought nothing new to the world, other than evil. The evidence suggests that, particularly historically the evilness can be considered as evenly shared and the social and scientific advances of medieval islam were streets ahead of medieval Europe. He has also suggested that the march of secularism can only be bad for the world. The reverse is evidential in the progress gained through the secular enlightenment and its guiding principles. This demonstrates that the pope, or Darth Ratzinger as I prefer to call him, fits into that group of people who believe things in spite of the evidence. But its more than that. Popes and cardinals have a very strange idea of what evidence is. This can lead them to see attacks on their religious teachings as tests from the sky fairy and not a reason to change their mind.
Just prior to the popes arrival, one of his underlings (or 'catholics' as they're also known) suggested that being in Britain was like being in a third world country. His evidence for this was the existence (apparently) of "aggressive atheism" here. We can forgive his miss-use of the English language (poetically, if not grammatically, as he should have said secularism) as the chap was a German cardinal and his remarks were translated. What I cannot forgive is that a man who is part of a church that so often espouses its charity works in poor nations can confuse a developed western (semi) democracy with a poor or 'unaligned' country due to the evidence of there being famous atheists here. Perhaps living in all of that opulent luxury has warped his view of reality. But the warping of reality is the very raison d'etres of the vatican.
It is this warped reality that underpins the entirety of the catholic church as a structure and what allows the pope and his cardinals not to blink when they offer up wildly contradictory or ill-informed edicts and rulings. A warped reality allows them, even with such a poor understanding of real life, to rule against condoms, abortion, and family planning in general while hiding. protecting and moving rapist priests. A warped concept of moral absolutism allows them to tell other people that they not only should not do things that come naturally to them but also that they will suffer eternally if they do it. Even the imaginary heat of hell is strong enough to warp the proverbial wood of the catholic mind.
The warped hive mind that is the catholic church anointed Ratzinger in his 70's and the warped world in which his mind matured has spewed forth in a number of ridiculous and often vile speeches and teachings he has given as pope. The madness is endemic within the cardinals and priests of the holy see (which apparently is not a box of saint's eyes, nor is it an ocean with gaps in it) and will not end when this pope's frame dodders its last. If only they lived in the real world and not in some fantasy land, they might have some understanding of what a 'third world' country actually is. Then the good that the catholic charities do wouldn't be hamstrung and overridden by the evil spewing of their overlords.
Wednesday 1 September 2010
Knowledge vs Belief: The Itchy Scrotum Debate
I have been reading up on STIs over the last few days. This is following recently published data on the incidence of various STIs in the UK and not due to a strange itch in vicinity of my scrotum. It turns out that there has been an increase in the reporting and diagnosis of STIs in the UK, but as any half decent scientist will tell you, this data by itself may not indicate a rise in the incidence per se but more likely an increase in people reporting it. So bizarrely, this is both good and bad news. Like on those occasions when you find out you haven't soiled yourself, but it unfortunately still smells like you have.
Despite this caveat there are still those, like Stewart Jackson MP, who think these figures are a damning indictment of 'years of liberal sex education'. Leaving aside the arguments that exist around the topic of sex education and the levels at which it should be taught, the biggest problem with this chappie (other than the £66,000 he claimed for his second home last year) is that he has no earthly idea what he's talking about. He obviously did not understand the figures, or the nature of the report, or the nature of sex education in the UK, or the difference between civility and rigorous debate, or long words and phrases... like confirmation bias, attitude polarisation or nobbycockshaftwankskull.
What most annoys me though, as suggested by a commenter on Evan Harris' Guardian Blog, is that on this subject he has has tried to fix the facts around his beliefs and not the other way round. I'm not sure why anyone would want to be like this, particularly in public life. But why, I ask myself, is this such a problem? Why should one not have the courage of one's convictions?
The problem here is best furnished by an example. If I were to suggest that my favourite football team was going to win the premier league this year, this would be a belief. Possibly based on evidence but not necessarily so. My belief here could and should be changed as my team gradually accumulates defeats and slips into the mire of a relegation battle. This is the difference between believing and knowing. However, to maintain the idea that my team will win the league despite the evidence would be immensely stupid.This is a ridiculous position to take and exactly the one which is taken by Stewart Jackson on the subject of STIs and sex education.
Willful ignorance is bad enough, but ignoring or distorting facts because you hold your position so sacred is a little risky if you are looking for respect. As Kipling may possibly have said; what a tit.
Despite this caveat there are still those, like Stewart Jackson MP, who think these figures are a damning indictment of 'years of liberal sex education'. Leaving aside the arguments that exist around the topic of sex education and the levels at which it should be taught, the biggest problem with this chappie (other than the £66,000 he claimed for his second home last year) is that he has no earthly idea what he's talking about. He obviously did not understand the figures, or the nature of the report, or the nature of sex education in the UK, or the difference between civility and rigorous debate, or long words and phrases... like confirmation bias, attitude polarisation or nobbycockshaftwankskull.
What most annoys me though, as suggested by a commenter on Evan Harris' Guardian Blog, is that on this subject he has has tried to fix the facts around his beliefs and not the other way round. I'm not sure why anyone would want to be like this, particularly in public life. But why, I ask myself, is this such a problem? Why should one not have the courage of one's convictions?
The problem here is best furnished by an example. If I were to suggest that my favourite football team was going to win the premier league this year, this would be a belief. Possibly based on evidence but not necessarily so. My belief here could and should be changed as my team gradually accumulates defeats and slips into the mire of a relegation battle. This is the difference between believing and knowing. However, to maintain the idea that my team will win the league despite the evidence would be immensely stupid.This is a ridiculous position to take and exactly the one which is taken by Stewart Jackson on the subject of STIs and sex education.
Willful ignorance is bad enough, but ignoring or distorting facts because you hold your position so sacred is a little risky if you are looking for respect. As Kipling may possibly have said; what a tit.
Wednesday 18 August 2010
Think it through, dickhead...
The joys of having the opportunity of thinking something through before uttering it are, for the most part, lost on myself in addition to the majority of the rest of the human race. Often this takes the shape of an amusing 'miss-speak', such as my saying to a non-countryside type person "I have to close my window at night otherwise I get woken up by my next door neighbour's fierce cock". Sometimes it results in putting one's foot in it, such as the time I suggested that someone was a bit of pain in the arse before being told they recently died of anus cancer.
But there are occasions when I can and must insist on thinking something through before developing a clear opinion. This is particularly true on occasions where I may be unsure of my facts in a situation where facts are important, such as when a girl asks you if that's a didgeridoo in your pocket, or if you're merely pleased to see them. Though this works swimmingly in some settings, occasionally not giving an instant clear answer can hamstring your ability to change someones mind, mainly due to the problem of primacy (the first thing you hear on a subject is the thing you tend to believe) and this presents a balancing issue.
In order to balance the need to keep someone open to a change of heart and to ensure you're not sprouting high grade bollocks there remains a need to form opinions based on what little you know of the subject in the first place. But this cannot work if you know absolutely nothing about the subject in the slightest. And that, boys and girls, is why the Daily Mail is such utter shite.
But there are occasions when I can and must insist on thinking something through before developing a clear opinion. This is particularly true on occasions where I may be unsure of my facts in a situation where facts are important, such as when a girl asks you if that's a didgeridoo in your pocket, or if you're merely pleased to see them. Though this works swimmingly in some settings, occasionally not giving an instant clear answer can hamstring your ability to change someones mind, mainly due to the problem of primacy (the first thing you hear on a subject is the thing you tend to believe) and this presents a balancing issue.
In order to balance the need to keep someone open to a change of heart and to ensure you're not sprouting high grade bollocks there remains a need to form opinions based on what little you know of the subject in the first place. But this cannot work if you know absolutely nothing about the subject in the slightest. And that, boys and girls, is why the Daily Mail is such utter shite.
Wednesday 4 August 2010
You always think you're right...
'You always think you're right'. The single most ridiculous thing people say to me, and they say it on a regular basis. More ridiculous than 'baseball is so much more interesting than cricket' or 'science doesn't give you real answers' and even more ridiculous than 'will you be voting Conservative?'. The implication is that I have opinions that I think are right, which is an obvious truism. The only possible alternative to that is to have opinions you know to be wrong. This would be a bizarre thing to do (and a prerequisite for taking holy orders).
What they really mean is 'you always think you're more right than I am.' This is more acceptable but still a touch daft. If they know more about it than I do, then I can understand their annoyance, but they should lay out their arguments and I may change my mind. If they know less about it than me, I cannot and will not. If you think the world revolves around god's arse as it (probably) says so somewhere in the bible or koran, and I think it doesn't based on the work of every physicist and star gazer since Copernicus as well as stuff I can directly do to prove the heliocentric model, I have a strong basis to think I'm more right than you are. It's a question of demonstration of demonstrable knowledge. as I once heard Christopher Hitchens say, 'claims made without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.'
The risk with having a good knowledge base for your opinions is that it can alienate people. Though being confident works in so many ways, arrogance never does. The problem is there is a fine line between confidence and arrogance. Luckily I know the difference. Mainly because I'm so awesome.
What they really mean is 'you always think you're more right than I am.' This is more acceptable but still a touch daft. If they know more about it than I do, then I can understand their annoyance, but they should lay out their arguments and I may change my mind. If they know less about it than me, I cannot and will not. If you think the world revolves around god's arse as it (probably) says so somewhere in the bible or koran, and I think it doesn't based on the work of every physicist and star gazer since Copernicus as well as stuff I can directly do to prove the heliocentric model, I have a strong basis to think I'm more right than you are. It's a question of demonstration of demonstrable knowledge. as I once heard Christopher Hitchens say, 'claims made without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.'
The risk with having a good knowledge base for your opinions is that it can alienate people. Though being confident works in so many ways, arrogance never does. The problem is there is a fine line between confidence and arrogance. Luckily I know the difference. Mainly because I'm so awesome.
Wednesday 28 July 2010
Do I hate stuff just because other people like it?
I recently saw a new advert for one of my least favourite television programs. Along with 'Big Brother' and 'Friends', 'Hollyoaks' has long been a key sparker of my TV ire fire and this advert, involving a group of highly attractive individuals walking about a bit in a photo studio, has removed any small lingering doubts I had that Hollyoaks is little more than an excuse for ogling at ladies soon to be regularly featured in 'Nuts' and 'Zoo'.
But over recent months, perhaps due to the mellowing effect of my old age, I have started to consider a point once aimed at me by a friend. During a particluarly vicious tirade against 'Gavin and Stacey', or 'wanky and wanky' as I like to call it, he suggested that I only dislike it because its popular. Could this be true? Am I merely being subconsciously contrarian? Or do I just want to stand out through hatred?
In essence... no.
But over recent months, perhaps due to the mellowing effect of my old age, I have started to consider a point once aimed at me by a friend. During a particluarly vicious tirade against 'Gavin and Stacey', or 'wanky and wanky' as I like to call it, he suggested that I only dislike it because its popular. Could this be true? Am I merely being subconsciously contrarian? Or do I just want to stand out through hatred?
In essence... no.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)