Good Reason

It's okay to be wrong. It's not okay to stay wrong.

Page 10 of 126

Talk the Talk: New Signs for New Times

13 October 2012 / / 2 Comments

Me and Jess are at it again, this time talking about sign languages and how they’re changing. I was horrified by some of the old signs (just like I’m horrified at some terms we use in spoken English), but hey, that’s why language changes.

I also did some digging on the different varieties of English-based sign languages. I wasn’t expecting ASL, BSL, and Auslan to have the same signs for so many words, since they really are different languages, but there really is a bit of convergence.

One-off show: Here
Subscribe via iTunes: Here
Show notes: Here

Blackout syndrome

11 October 2012 / / Comments Off on Blackout syndrome

A new video from Mr Deity is out, and it’s a heavy hitter. It’s about the racism in the Book of Mormon, with its teaching that dark skin was a punishment from God upon the Lamanites.

When I posted this on a social media site that I’ll call “Schmacebook”, a friend of mine (I’ll call him ‘Schmavid’) asked me “What was your take on this when you were a believer?”

So I’m trying to think… and nothing’s happening.

Oh, I can think of rationales that apologists would say, like “the dark skin was just the mark of the curse, not the curse itself”, or whatever rubbish I read somewhere that I just repeated when questioned about it. But I can’t remember what I thought about it.

I wonder if I thought about it at all. I know I had this ‘blackout’ reflex — just blocking the thoughts when they were uncomfortably close to unbelief.

Or maybe I didn’t attempt to integrate the racist teaching with my desire not to be racist. I think I was happy to let the book be the book, let real life be real life, try not to blend them too much, and then try not to think too much about not thinking about it.

That’s really bad, isn’t it? I’ve wondered how faithful-but-liberal Mormons can be in the Church when they’re actually okay with gay marriage. Maybe that’s how. The Church is your philosophical bubble, and if one bit seems uncomfortable, you can float over to another part you like more, and try not to let that one part bother you too much. After all, you “feel” that it’s all true, so you just have faith that all that stuff will sort itself out someday.

So how can I avoid making that mistake now? Maybe I need to watch out for symptoms of the blackout reflex, integrate my ideas and real life, and keep trying to be bothered by things that I really ought to be bothered by.

Profiles in Faith: Charlie Fuqua

9 October 2012 / / 2 Comments

In Profiles in Faith, we celebrate those who really believe their scriptures. And today we feature Charlie Fuqua, Republican candidate for the Arkansas House of Representatives, and Bible believer. He’s attracted some attention for his stand on executing rebellious children.

Fuqua, who is anti-abortion, points out that the course of action involved in sentencing a child to death is described in the Bible and would involve judicial approval.

By golly, he’s right!

Exodus 21:17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.

Leviticus 20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

But parents wouldn’t be allowed to kill their children willy-nilly. That would be crazy! You’d have to go through the legal system and observe due process. It’s just that knowing your parents had the authority to kill you would instill a healthy respect.

Even though this procedure would rarely be used, if it were the law of land, it would give parents authority. Children would know that their parents had authority and it would be a tremendous incentive for children to give proper respect to their parents.

Tough but fair.

Lest we be too hard on Mr Fuqua, let’s remind ourselves that he is only following the example of his god, who drowned almost all of his own disobedient children in the most thorough act of genocide in recorded history.

It follows, doesn’t it? For Mr Fuqua, love is what you have for someone who can harm you. The love that a child has for a parent (who can only kill you for a limited period of time) is just a foretaste of that far more infinite love for one’s creator, who can torture you for eternity.

Talk the Talk: Banned Books Week

5 October 2012 / / Comments Off on Talk the Talk: Banned Books Week

We’ve been on quite a civil liberties thing lately, first with Blasphemy Day, and now with Banned Books.

I was all set to read some of Lady Chatterley’s Lover on air, but we didn’t get time. Even so, I think we would have tried it if someone had phoned in requesting it. It would have been good as a kind of readers’ theatre, with Jess as Lady Chatterley, and me as Oliver. On second thought, that might have been awkward.

One-off show: Here
Subscribe via iTunes: Here
Show notes: Here

Happy International Blasphemy Day!

30 September 2012 / / 1 Comment

Since it’s International Blasphemy Day, I’m going off on every religion I can think of. It’s all happening on the Facebook side of this operation.

Here

This is an extremely necessary event. Governments and religions are trying to pass laws to prevent you from saying anything that would offend someone’s religious sensibilities. Such laws prevent the free and open exchange of ideas, and are often used against religious minorities. That’s why it’s important to take up your right to express even disrespectful views on important topics.

Also, check out the Blasphemy page on Facebook.

Talk the Talk: Our Land, Our Languages

27 September 2012 / / Comments Off on Talk the Talk: Our Land, Our Languages

Something really unexpected happened on this week’s podcast: we got an email right in the middle of it! It was so unexpected that we brought everything to a halt and read it out loud. Then it happened again. Would that all our Talk the Talk episodes were so interactive!

We were talking about Indigenous languages, and a new governmental report with recommendations that challenge the monolingual assumptions of many Australians. Along the way, I talked about Julia Gillard’s assertion that learning English is some kind of Australian civic duty, like voting or something. I think I might have used the term ‘linguistic fascism’.
One-off show: Here
Subscribe via iTunes: Here
Show notes: Here

The next level

26 September 2012 / / 1 Comment

Talk the Talk: Blasphemy!

22 September 2012 / / Comments Off on Talk the Talk: Blasphemy!

If you like Good Reason for the atheism, but not so much for the linguistics, then this episode of Talk the Talk might be for you. It’s about blasphemy, the recent Muslim film riots, and the need for Blasphemy Day (which is September 30 — get your costumes early!).

It’s a little soap-boxy, but I said what I wanted to say: The right to question — and even ridicule — religious ideas is important. There needs to be a way of saying, “This is a bad idea.” It’s wrong to give up that right just because it will hurt someone’s feelings. If someone is willing to resort to violence and murder when their ideas aren’t treated with kid gloves, then this is an admission that their ideas aren’t defensible using regular means, and are invalid. Muslims, I’m looking at you.

On the other hand not all religious people lose their shit when they get sent up. Even though I have no love for the Mormon Church, I do cite them as an example of how to respond to criticism and mockery.

It was fun to be a bit blasphemous on the radio, and it was fun to watch Jess Allen squirm more and more throughout the interview. The look on her face when she heard “Hasa Diga Eebowai” for the first time was truly priceless — I wouldn’t trade it for anything.

One-off show: Here
Subscribe via iTunes: Here
Show notes: Here

Guest post in The Red Pen: Spotting linguistic baloney

14 September 2012 / / 1 Comment

Even though I eat linguistic prescriptivists for breakfast, I do have a soft spot for the odd copy editor, including Laura Moyer of Fredericksburg.com. On her blog, The Red Pen, she alludes to a clash we had once:

Soon after I started the Red Pen last year, I wrote a column blithely declaring myself a prescriptivist. I’m a copy editor, I said, and copy editors are supposed to be prescriptivists.

A linguist from Perth, Australia, scolded me via email. It was OK for me to be a prescriptivist if I couldn’t help myself, he wrote, but I shouldn’t contaminate others with my beliefs.

I apologized for contaminating him and offered to send a bar of soap.

No need, he replied. “I’ve already boiled my computer.”

Yes, that would be me. She continues by pointing out the need for prescriptive rules, at least in the editing sphere (and I can agree with that), but she does allow that some of the rules editors live by do seem a little arbitrary.

As a copy editor I’ve perpetuated many of [these rules]. I truly regret it, because these aren’t rules of good writing. They’re baloney.

So how does a careful 21st-century copy editor tell baloney rules from good practice?

I thought this was such a good question that I wrote a response, and I’m very pleased that she’s run it as a guest column on her blog:

A linguist responds: Guest column from Daniel Midgley

It’s mostly about using the Google Ngram Viewer to find patterns in what writers actually do.

So, for instance, what about Laura’s idea that “comprised of” is always wrong? Let’s take a look at the data and see what authors really do. We head to the Google Ngram Viewer, look up the search term “is comprised of, comprises“, and:

Looks like ‘comprises’ has the edge. The data breaks in Laura’s direction. Does that mean it’s wrong to say “The committee is comprised of…”? Not really. What it means is that if you’re trying to decide which to use, you’ll be safer going with the choice that many other writers have chosen. Doing it that way will help your writing fit into a body of work, seem more appropriate, and be less distracting.

It’s fine for editors to run a tight ship so their publications appear the way they want. But now it’s easy for them to look at real language data so their pronouncements will have more validity than just their own opinion. Descriptivism informing prescriptivism? Could be a paradigm shift.

Talk the Talk: Apple’s Genius Guide

12 September 2012 / / Comments Off on Talk the Talk: Apple’s Genius Guide

I don’t usually read training manuals for fun, but Apple’s Genius Guide does have some interesting tips. Not just how to talk about computers, but how to read people, more or less.

Jonny Hopper’s in the chair today, taking over from Jess Allen. You have to check him out — the man has a great voice.

One-off show: Here
Subscribe via iTunes: Here
Show notes: Here

« Older posts Newer posts »

Meta

© 2024 Good Reason

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑