Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Window 8 Install Failing? One Very Easy Fix...


Editor's note: I am also the author, so this is entirely a superfluous editor's note to begin with.  Sorry.  Nonetheless, the first part of this blog is really more of a rant about how stupid this whole thing was, so you might want to scroll down a bit to get the actual answer...
So more or less since Windows 8 came out, I've been trying (quite unsuccessfully) to get it installed after downloading it from OnTheHub.com (which is the University of Iowa's "partner" for Microsoft products, or more correctly speak, one more middleman to fuck things up, as per usual.  ANYWAY), and of course, that meant that I got to play the "frantically Google the shit out of every possible iteration of the phrase 'Windows 8 install fail'" game, as well as the fine past time of "get passed back and forth between OnTheHub (a division of an equally shitty company known as Kivuto Solutions, who were about as douchey as they sound), Microsoft and University of Iowa ITS (who were initially helpful, but in person were your typical front-desk shitheads who refused to let me talk to someone who could actually help me)" - all of which was totally fun, and had me losing faith in my vaunted ability to Google the shit out of something until I figured out (AKA, 94% of what Geek Squad actually does behind their curtain, or really basically what any good tech support fiend does first), and at one point I even resorted to torrenting the goddamn ISO just in case I somehow was never able to download the installation file (because OnTheHub's baby-retard-zebra service only gives you access for 30 days, ostensibly so enterprising students don't somehow keep using their free software illegally, although how you're supposed to do this without the Product Key is beyond me, so as usual, poor design to prevent unlikely piracy fucks everyone again) until I finally found the answer here, but here's the brief summary:
(HI! If you read the editor's note above, and decided not to read the above rant and skip down here, this is where the actual information starts)
-I'm guessing that at some point, you probably downloaded the Windows 8 preview, yes?  For whatever reason, when you go to do it "for real," the Windows 8 setup doesn't overwrite the old file, called the "WebSetup" folder.  If that folder is still there, you'll get the "Sorry, something happened and we couldn't finish creating the ISO.  Restart setup and try again" message.
The location of the folder is at: C:\%UserProfile%\AppData\Local\Microsoft\WebSetup
where %UserProfile% is the user account you downloaded it under (probably your default account) - this is the folder you need to delete.
Once that folder is deleted, run the Windows 8 setup file (found here, if you haven't, like me, already downloaded it 8 different times thinking it was a corrupted file), and it should prompt you at that point for your product key - which is something it wasn't doing for me.  After that, you can choose to make it an ISO, run it normally, run it from USB, etc.
If you need screenshots, check the EightForum link below.
(h/t to EightForums, where I originally found and condensed this guide.)
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Saturday, November 3, 2012

Why I Should Probably Stop Being An Asshole To Complete Strangers (Una Saga De Los Dos Idiotas En Twitter)

(So this is a long and mostly-stupid story and I apologize in advance.  Also I'm lazy and don't feel like re-telling it when people ask, so I'm just going to refer them to this page for future reference, as I assume that my posts will be enshrined for the multitudes of future generations to read and think, "God, what a douche canoe.")

 It all started with someone else's misfortune.

While my moderate insomnia drove me to my usual routine of checkTwittercheckFacebookcheckDeadspincheckTwittercheckTheAtlanticcheckDeadspin ad nauseum this past Tuesday (October 30th), two different unfortunate individuals were attacked and robbed at gunpoint in a different part of the city.  As a UIowa student, I receive "Hawk Alerts" when there's quote-unquote "dangers" on or near campus, but as the land line in my girlfriend's house rang 3 times, here's the actual message I received:

“ALERT: Hawk Alert: REPLACE THIS LINE: with activity/event, location, and (optional) recommended protective action. See e.uiowa.edu (More information)”

 This was not what we might call especially "helpful," and in a manner indicative of the time we live in, I took to Twitter, searching the keyphrase "hawk alert."  Most of what came back were tweets pertaining to the ridiculous message above (which, notably, the official UIowa Twitter scrubbed and replaced with an apology), and I ended up getting the actual story (as I assume most people did) from the Daily Iowan story on it that was up very quickly.  (If you want to see some other Hawk Alert fails, here's a compilation from the DI.)  So anyway, that's what was up.

But of course, I didn't stop there.  Twitter is fantastic for the fact that people will post stupid shit on there and forget that unless you protect your account, it's available publicly for ANYONE to see and be all "Holy shit, you're kind of a terrible human being" about (for example, the collected tweets of St. Louis Cardinals fans do a fantastic job of displaying this.)  So as I was scrolling through the tweets collected by that search, ostensibly to get more information but mostly to, lesbehonest, hate-read (because feeling smug and superior to complete strangers is always an excellent use of one's time, especially around 1 AM CT, I'd say), I came across this little gem:


(If the embedded tweet above has disappeared, this here's the screenshot of it)

Which, okay, all sorts of what I would kind of expect from your classic airhead/over-privileged sorority gal.  I think that, given the circumstances, most people would agree that saying something like that is a bit callous, if not exactly grounds for impugning their existence as a member of the human species, right?

So, given the ease with which one can spread a stupid thing someone else has said on Twitter, I immediately retweeted it:


...and added some followup commentary:


However, because I am a moron, I decided it would be a good idea to to keep reading this girl's feed - you know, to reinforce the already-negative conceptions I had about her (again, no one would argue that I'm a peach of an individual for doing this), whereupon THIS was a thing that existed:



(If the embedded tweet above has disappeared, this here's the screenshot of it)

H'OKAY THEN.

Naturally, as the certified internet vigilante of the universe™, I had the duty, nay, THE SACRED OBLIGATION to be kind of a total dick about the whole thing.

So I retweeted it as well... again, with some commentary.



Now I guess there was some anticipation that I might get some sort of response to it (for example, if you are so inclined, and have a serious amount of valueless free time on your hands [I guess?], look up Twitter activity between me and a certain @BailofRights - I waste a lot of time arguing with people who aren't going to change their minds, because I AM TERRIBLE AT TIME MANAGEMENT AMBITIOUS), but it's not exactly like I was also banking on that being the case.  I thought it'd be more along the usual shouting into the void that is the internet/Twitter/etc.  Anyway, I followed it up with my usual sage witticisms and thought I'd call it a night.



So I wake up the next morning (okay, actually THAT morning, but as far as I'm concerned, the previous day remains the same day until you sleep for an extended period of time, because I refuse to align myself with how time actually "works," I guess), and as I'm going through my morning routine, I see I've gotten a reply:





1.  4:47 AM?!  WHY ARE YOU UP SO EARLY?!

2.  Cyber-bullied?!  OBSCENE?!!  OUT OF LI- okay maybe a little I guess.

This, too, got a retweet (which I had to do a workaround for, because she was apparently blocking retweets.  WEIRD) and a reply:


And yes, that was perhaps a bit harsh, I admit.  But cyber-bullying is what people like Amanda Todd or Megan Meier endured and eventually lost their lives as a result of - so in my mind, that's more than just a little bit of histrionics on the part of Ms. Giammona, methinks.  What I actually did was, like I said, call her out on something offensive she said publicly, with her real name attached to it.  (And yes, I suppose there is a whole separate debate as to what the reasonable expectation of privacy ought to be on the internet when an individual takes no measures to protect their activities being connected to their name despite the ready availability of these measures... but anyway.)

In the course of my morning Facebook/Twitter routine, I also saw that someone had answered Ms. Giammona's cry for justice:


Emily Gaziano
Maybe you should stop being such a jackass on twitter and calling people out. What did you not get into the fraternity you wanted? Just because you are not a part of the Greek community does not mean you have to bash it. Yes there are stereotypes, I agree. But judging someone by what they tweet? It’s twitter, people write whatever they please. It’s called social media. Get over it.

As I noted on the Tumblr entry (ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED: shameless plug for mediocre Tumblr), Ms. Gaziano is, among other things:

- a journalism major
- a marketing major (although prior to these, she was a "Health and Human Physiology/Sports Pyschology" major, so, you know: credibility)
- the "social media director" and a writer for this fine industry/trade publication, where she has written acclaimed articles such as:
The "Frattiest" Fraternity Member
Friends WITH OUT [sic] Benefits 
College Relationships, Will They Last for Summer?

- a member of Pi Beta Phi, whose mission statement is, quote:
"to promote friendship, develop women of integrity, cultivate leadership potential and enrich lives through community service"
...which, as we can see, would well-describe both of these ladies' remarkable and respectable interactions with yours truly.   (Note: before anyone gets all up in arms for me somehow being misogynist and expecting these women to "shut up and play nice" - uh, no, that's not at all what this was about.  Believe me, if it had been frat bros, same reactions from me.  Male or female, I don't care.  My point in bringing up the sorority mission statement is to show the distance between their alleged "good things they do that people always leave out when they bring up the stereotypes about the Greek community" and... uh... how members of this hallowed community actually act.)

So anyway, I replied to Emily.  Well, okay, I actually wrote out a more-or-less page-or-so-long rant (in Notepad, HOLLA!), and then I stepped on the power switch of the power strip that the computer I was working on was plugged into, so I lost that whole spiel - what some might say was a "sign" that I was probably taking this far too seriously - so this was the second, somewhat lazier draft:



11:10am Matthew Hepworth 

Dear Emily,

Thank you for your kind words and concern.

Originally I had this super-long rant written out that explained, point-by-point and in detail, why your message/attitude (and that of your compatriot/"sister"/colleague/friend-for-pay) was bad and wrong and what-not, but I feel like if you read your own words a couple more times there, as well as hers, you'll understand better than through any lengthy diatribe I could muster in your general direction.

Also, for someone who's a "social media director," I would consider being a little bit more internet-savvy: this message and my reply are being posted for the world to see and evaluate accordingly.

I wish you only the finest every single bit of what's coming to you.

Cheers,

Matthew

11:15am Emily Gaziano

Matt, 
Thank you so much for the threat. Happy Halloween.
Cheers mate.


Threat?!

(Okay, fine, by "keep" I mean, "once," but IMAGES ARE FUN HARF HARF HARF)

Anyway, back to Ms. Giammona - here were some reactions from some followers of mine:


But without a doubt, this may have been the best reaction:




THAT'S GREAT HUSTLE! 
(h/t Drew Magary/Kissing Suzy Kolberg, a writer and an NFL blog you should probably read)


I guess here's what I was trying to do (as well as my thoughts on the results) - and then I'd like to reply to some objections that I believe may have been raised by others who saw this, but were kind enough to not do to me what I was doing to these hapless strangers.

  • First of all, despite the apparent philanthropic leanings of the Pan-Hellenic community of fraternal organizations at large (which is like ALWAYS the first thing that gets brought up any time one makes negative claims about Greeks), I would argue that the actual calculus of utility would show that their charitable works are far, far outweighed by the harms that fraternity and sorority life cause to both their members and the communities in which they reside.  I don't think anyone would dispute that the original impetus for collegiate female fraternal organizations (e.g., to provide a support network for the extreme minority of women who were attending colleges in the late 19th and early 20th centuries) was a noble and instrumentally good thing - but can anyone seriously claim that these organizations continue to fulfill that need, or that such a need even exists when women make up at least 57% of student populations in public universities?  (The answer here, if my gentle leading-you-by-the-hand has not been enough, is "no.")
Okay, so wither their continued existence?  Well, in short, go read Max Weber or Georg Simmel or C. Wright Mills - exclusive in-groups of any kind will do what they can to make power use predictable in a fashion that ensures their continued existence and maintains advantageous power and status hierarchies.  IN OTHER LESS SNOOTY WORDS, when your organization already exists, you're gonna keep it going even if your original purpose isn't the reason for it anymore, especially if you get to feel cool and special and like totally better than everyone else.  That's right: GREEKS ARE NOTHING MORE THAN INSTITUTIONALLY-ANCHORED HIPSTERS the Greek community continues to exist because it feels like it ought to, not because it actually serves any useful purpose.  And in areas/social classes of this country where the, ahem, "prestige" associated with being Greek was a source of power for otherwise-disadvantaged classes of individuals (teh wimmens), it's not surprising that fraternal affiliation gained the status it still currently "enjoys" - EXCEPT IT IS NOW 2012 AND WOMEN ARE NOT DELICATE LADY-FLOWERS NEEDING THE PROTECTIVE CHARMS OF "SISTERHOOD." 
Obviously, the persistence of these organizations seems to suggest (rather untruthfully) otherwise - and of course they do, because what are they doing to do, be honest?  I.e., "Yes, you, as women, are empowered as never before, so we're not really necessary but if you'd like to continue paying to be a member of our club and have 'friends' it'd be really great because we have this whole infrastructure in place that we need to continue supporting rather than finding ways to actually contribute to society?"
But, no.  Instead, we get women from already-privileged socioeconomic backgrounds, who continue to enforce this undeserved social hierarchy (if not "actively" causing problems, the fact they are still participating makes them, at a minimum, part of the problem and definitely not part of the solution), women who as a result of their participation are never challenged on their assumption that their paradigm is normal and good, and as a latent effect, who fail to see any problem with saying blatantly racist things in a public forum or trumpeting their economic privilege in a situation that clearly didn't call for that information.  The lack of self-awareness kills me, and moreover, lends no credibility to the claim that these stereotypes are merely stereotypes.
(That the second sentence of Ms. Gaziano's delightful message to me was literally "What did you not get into the fraternity you wanted?" speaks to how powerfully entrenched these affiliations are for some of these women - they can't possibly understand why someone would dislike/disapprove of the Greek system unless that individual had been weighed and found wanting by said system, and therefore, any complaint could only be motivated by their failure to be accepted and of course that means the system IS FUNCTIONING PROPERLY ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD.)
  • And I know that Greek-affiliated people who were aware of this whole silly spat probably were offended both by the viciousness of my remarks and the implied insinuation that they themselves were being targeted for their affiliation.  Nope.  I hate the system, I was annoyed with (but at least aware of the circumstances engendering) the responses of the two individuals, but I am definitely aware of the difference between an individual and an organization.  Yes, I realize that attacking something you hold so dear as a part of your identity feels like a personal attack in some sense, but be objective about it - you are not solely the letters of your pledge pin.
  • Of course, I realize that there is a sheer ludicrousness [side note: that the word is not actually "ludicrity," really bothers me far more than it should] to the assumption that arguing with/attacking a stranger, especially on the internet, will somehow bring their misguided views around to see the light.  All hopes for a sudden infusion of reason and clarity aside, we are not at that scary point of technological singularity where IRL me is ACTUALLY me to complete strangers, which means that people are going to act exactly as they would towards hostile complete strangers - i.e., be hostile right back to them.  This is the tendrils of our pre-human brain on the internet, and that's how it goes, folks (or else, trust me, trolls would be vastly less successful at what they do and Yahoo/YouTube comments sections would be sparkling bastions of enlightened discussion as opposed to their current nuclear disaster/sewer-like mutations.)  Basically, if I were to act this way in a classroom [confession: sometimes I do in a rather muted form], I'd be looked at as an immature and pedantic prick.  And I suppose it is fair to hold people to real-world standards of conversational civility in online interactions, BUT- 

...doesn't this also indicate that people who put their actual identity to things they write on the internet ought to be held to the same scrutiny as if they said it out loud?!?!

 (Hey! Let's ask Ms. Gaziano, our aspiring marketing guru and resident social media "expert," what her reasoned opinion is on this matter:

"It’s twitter, people write whatever they please. It’s called social media. Get over it."

 Companies of the world: DEFINITELY make sure Emily Gaziano's resume lands in your "interview" pile! You probably will not regret it!  MAYBE.  [All predictions of this blog are held to and neither express nor imply any warranty!1!1!!1])
Read more »
Posted by at 1 comment:

Friday, September 14, 2012

"They call me Thumper!"

(Post title: completely unrelated to anything, but it makes my girlfriend laugh.)

 Well hey again.

Bailey responded to my earlier post (after, admittedly, I Tweeted* at her to get her attention - it turns out that my original shorter comment was caught in a spam filter of some sorts, which I ought to have suspected; on the other hand, we're not exactly talking about a densely-populated comment section between either of us, so it seems a little silly to want protection from comment section spam artists, but better safe than sorry, I suppose) in the comment section of her blog, and I felt that her reply deserved its own reply.

I’m glad you spent so much time analyzing my asymptote analogy (which was intended to depict how the development of human life is very intricate and evolving rather than characterized by distinct points–the “holes” are irrelevant to that point) calling me stupid, and negating the conservative movement as some crazy group of bible thumpers. Really effective.

Oh, Bailey.

I never called you stupid.  You're not.  Hence my disappointment with the way you advanced your argument - I expected better from you know in the ~11 years I've known you.  When I first clicked through to that article, I thought, "You know, I'm sure we won't see eye-to-eye on some things but the fact that she's taking this kind of approach to the whole debate is interesting."  Sadly, given the type, frequency and volume of the posts that caused me to unfollow you on Twitter and de-friend you on Facebook last fall, I should have known better - but there we are.

I can’t wait to read the biology articles you gave me that argue about the beginning of human life. Oh wait, you didn’t…you just said “How daaare she claim something as scientific fact!! There are biologists out there that would argue and stuff!” Ooooooh. Got me there!

To start out with, here's a study published this year by the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology as to when OB-GYNs consider pregnancy to have begun.  Notably, yes, 57% OB-GYNs who responded share your views - that pregnancy begins at conception, while 28% responded in agreement with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) definition of pregnancy as "beginning with implantation of the embryo in the uterine wall."  (16% were undecided.)

"Now Matthew," you might say, "that study indicates that the majority of OB-GYNs believe that pregnancy starts at the moment of conception!  So stop writing posts that are easily debunked.  Also please stop speaking as me in your blog.  Starting... now."

Fair enough, but you'll want to read more of the study than what I'm posting here, broseph.  Also, some basic math - 57% isn't a consensus.  (Additionally, another study from 1998, cited by the authors of this study, concluded that the disagreement sat at the 50% conception and 48% implantation marks, respectively.)  Yes, it's a majority (YAY DEMOCRACY), but SCIENCE isn't about getting the votes - it's about theory, and refining that theory through observation and testing.  Inasmuch as ACOG is an authority in the field of obstetrics and gynecology, I think it's reasonable to consider that their definition carries water, but if nothing else, that seems to indicate to me that there is CONSIDERABLE DISAGREEMENT in the obstetrics field about when exactly pregnancy begins - in fact, not surprisingly, the 2012 study finds a significant association between religiosity/religious affiliation and belief about the start point of pregnancy.  (Feel free to check the references provided in both studies; I've helpfully provided you with the PDFs so we can be clear about this.  As far as goes the "biology articles...that argue about the beginning of human life" request, you'll find those referenced in the cited articles.  I am not going to do ALL your homework for you.)

That said, whither thy own citations?  To call me out for pointing out that you begin your argument with a well-known logical fallacy, rather than responding to the actual argument, does you no favors in that regard.

Of course, then you retort with this:

I’ve known you a long time, and I’d never say this to you had you not been a complete JERK in your comment, and worse in your blog post–but I have NEVER in my life met someone who gets off so much on toeing the “moderate” line and using words like “de rigueur” than yourself. Doesn’t get more “self-congratulatory” than that. Sitting on a fence doesn’t make you wiser or more reasonable–it just gives you a sore ass.

 First of all, I think my browser history would be completely at odds with what you claim I "get off so much on."

/opens "Incognito Window"
//searches for "elitist French-y catch-phrase quintuple entendre orgy"
///FAPFAPFAP

(Har har.  This is a joke, you see.  About porn.  And that you made a remark concerning what gets me off.)

I don't "toe the 'moderate' line" - I simply recognize that nothing worthy of debate is ever so simple that it can be broken down into the black and white areas for which we seem to be so insistent upon creating boundaries.  And holy shit, you're going to take me to task for using the phrase "de rigeur?"  God forbid that I choose to use words well-suited while writing; with that kind of remark, you'd think I was a literary "1%" pissing upon the "99%" with words that I DIDN'T DESERVE TO MAKE USE OF YOU VERBOSE PIG WE IZ OCCYOUPY LITTERACY GET A BRAIN MORAN

Yo, the thing is, Bailey, have you even SAT on this fence?  The view's great up here, it's padded, I have friends on both sides who tell me I'm pretty, etc.  Mein Hintern feels pretty good, actually.



 I personally felt your analysis was nit-picky, 

 I'm actually pretty terrible at math, but if there's one thing I detest, it's bad arguments and bad analogies.  (That's actually two things.  Again, I'm terrible at math.)  And you know what I did?  I picked at your argument's structure.  I'm not saying that your main point is WRONG, or somehow INVALID, but good lord, the way you went about it was in no way cogent (OH DAMMIT THERE I GO AGAIN WITH MY HIGH-FALUTIN' VERBIAGE [ARGHHHHH ANOTHER $0.62** WORD NOOOOOO]) and that's what bugged me.  I felt like you were doing your cause (one, as it happens, that I have some sympathies towards) no favors with your approach.

avoided my actual points

 Okay, so here's what I'm interpreting as your "actual points," as reduced to a logical argument:

Premise 1: "Any legitimate biology book and doctor will tell you that human life begins at conception."
Premise 2: "It is morally wrong to kill innocent human life."
Premise 3: "See how the curved line goes seems to slope down, but never quite touches the X-axis? Theoretically, this line will continue to slope downward infinitely, NEVER touching the X-axis. Now in my head, I think of the X-axis as the point of conception of human life."  My paraphrase: "If this line is the course of human development and life, the X-axis is the point of conception, except that I just said that 'this line will continue to slope downward infinitely, NEVER touching the X-axis.'"
Conclusion: "Now, doesn’t this make us sound just a little naive when we use terms like “blob of cells”?"

Premise 1:  I actually just debunked this above.  False.
Premise 2:  True.  (C'mon.  I'm callous, but I'm not a total monster.)
Premise 3:  The premise is self-contradictory: if "the X-axis is the point of conception of human life," but "this line will continue to slope downward infinitely, NEVER touching the X-axis," only one can be true, but not both.  [editor's*** note: (P v Q) & ~(P & Q) is the logical operation there, and it's known as a exclusive disjunction.] False.
Conclusion:  I don't know.  Can someone parse that one for me?  Because it sure doesn't seem that the premises lead to the conclusion, so it seems like a pretty bad argument to me.  Which is what I was addressing.  Which seems to be the opposite of avoiding your actual points.

 very assuming of parts of my life you know nothing about,

WHERE?! [CITATION NEEDED]

 and had no indication that you *actually* think for yourself.

 Hmmm.  I guess except for the fact that I wrote the whole thing.  Wait a minute... is this a Turing Test?  DID I JUST GET ACCUSED OF BEING A COMPUTER PROGRAM?  On behalf Excel installations everywhere that are much better at math than I am, I'm offended.  (I think.  I mean, I think I'm offended.  I think, therefore, I-RUNTIMEERROR)

  You’ve always been the “Conform to non-conformity” type, but you’d think that eventually you’d have learned that that doesn’t make you a non-conformist. It just makes you look and sound bitter.

 I- what- just- whatevenis-

"Why do people get off on using words like "Faux-servative" anyway? Makes you look like an asshat."

 Oh, I dunno, because when I think "conservative," I tend to think of "minimal governmental interference," not "let's regulate the shit out of things as it suits our particular moral position."  But that might just be me.  Maybe that's where my less-than-clever phrase came from.  Let me ask YOU: why do you get off on the phrase "get off?"  That's like TWO TIMES in this retort!  And what's wrong with this hat?  It looks comfortable!

My explanation of "moderates": They evolve from bulls, whose butt cracks come from sitting on fences too long & that's how bull shit is made

Hold on.  You're training to be a nurse, right?  You do understand the whole buttcrack thing, right?  I mean... it's... it's just that... that explanation, to my decidedly-untrained biomedical mind, seems a bit dubious.

@SynyT I know. I think he gets off on writing like that--he thinks his logic goes above people's heads or something.

WOULD YOU QUIT SPECULATING ON HOW EXACTLY I GET OFF IT IS GETTING A TAD CREEPY UP IN THIS OL' BUH-LAWG

@BailofRights I stopped at “I spend a lot of time on Deadspin.” That told me what I need to know.

What?  That I like irreverently funny coverage of sports and sports media?  So sue me.

Also, with that last tweet, I think we just broke the ad-hominem counter:



I guess at the end of the day, none of this really matters.  Bailey, I think your views, as they are now, are pretty disappointing and don't align with mine at all, but there's nothing I can do about that.  I'm sorry if you think I crossed the line in my responses (which is odd, because I can't find a single spot where I impugned YOU personally in my initial post, but, you know, feelings and all that, I guess), or if I didn't do exactly what you said was okay, (i.e., "That being said, if you take serious issue with any of my points on here, please direct them to the comments section on this post,") - lesson learned, I guess.

(Not really.)

Bailey, I think you're smart, funny, passionate, that you have a beautiful voice, that you will probably be an fantastic nurse and aside from our differences, that you have generally been a pretty cool person.  I mean you no ill will personally.  Take that as you will.

*God dammit.  This is the future we live in, folks.  "Tweeted" is a legitimate word that has meaning, rather than just being a fun little onomatopoeia ostensibly bird-related in some fashion.  Ugh.
**Adjusted for inflation
***The author is the editor, because this is an EXTREMELY low-budget two-bit operation, see?
Posted by at No comments:

Monday, September 10, 2012

A Faux-servative Blogger Gets The Fire Joe Morgan Treatment


Because I have this problem where I can't just leave well enough alone, I sometimes read the Twitter feeds and blogs of people who are basically targets of my disdain otherwise, which is, frankly, not healthy.  To be fair, they said stupid things first; I just read them and get inordinately (perhaps even FROTHILY) pissy.

 Thankfully, I am not blazing new ground here - the classic Fire Joe Morgan blog set this kind of template for us years ago, and I'm just following in their giant bitchy footsteps.  Also I spend a lot of time on Deadspin.  A LOT OF TIME.  Anyway, that's what gave me the inspiration to stop getting mad... and start getting (selectively) snarky.  

 Someone I've known for a number of years has, inexplicably, been caught in the foul-smelling winds of the current faux-servative movement that has sprung up with a vengeance in the years since the 2008 election.  And hell, good for that person, if that person were, in any true sense of the word, "creative" about their approach to the whole "parroting the narrative of one particularly loud sector of the shithole that is the current American political system" -

BUT -

This person is not.  This person IS a college graduate, which, at the moment, makes them higher-status than me (not everyone can pull off the "eight-or-so-years plan" with the kind of flair I bring to the table, y'all), and perhaps as a result, I would expect slightly better writing/reasoning from them, but as you'll see, this is not the case.

What IS the case is that the following piece you'll read (and have dissected by yours truly) is pretty well indicative of the self-congratulatory attitude that the more vocal wing of the "People's Liberation Front of the Non-Coffee Hot Beverage Variety" has adopted as their de rigueur method of approaching anything they disagree with other people on.  Look, I appreciate being a dick just as much as anyone here - but do one of two things whilst taking this approach:

1) Be funny

2) Be accurate

If you can't do one or the other (or both, if you're feeling ambitious), then what's the point?

*wanking motion*

Ah, yes, that.

Anyway, I originally submitted a response because this person claimed that, quote, "if you take serious issue with any of my points on here, please direct them to the comments section on this post, and I will be sure to reply to you as soon as possible. I am always up for a debate on abortion, all I ask is that it be done on the proper forum."  So I did, but it turns out that it's one of those things where the blog owner has to approve the comment, which is HIGHLY convenient when there's a chance that someone might take the things you say at their face value... and call you out on them.  Once I realized that my little fit of comment-rage wasn't going to have a shot at seeing the light of day, I done brung it over yonder.

Here's the source piece (for the sake of veracity) - and my response begins below...


Pro-Life: not because the church told me to be, but because biology, ethics, and a little algebra led me there.


"Pro-Life:  I am TOTALLY not justifying my religious beliefs that I don't want held to any sort of reasonable scrutiny so these are my reasons that I came up with after the fact."

Any legitimate biology book and doctor will tell you that human life begins at conception.

Ah, yes, beginning with the ol' "No true Scotsman" fallacy.  Good start.  Because any disagreement here could not POSSIBLY be legitimate.

When the sperm penetrates the egg, new life is formed,

Aside from the already-living cells that this mixture contains.  OMG ITS CELLULAR INCEPTION (also, HAHA, "penetrates")

 which is an undeniable fact. It’s not alien life; it’s not zebra life; and it’s not polar bear life. Nothing can possibly come from that “blob of cells” besides a human. Ergo: human. life. period. 

Nothing, except miscarriages, those too - which, to be clear, we don't hold pregnant women liable for negligence when those occur, do we?  To say nothing of the fact that proper terms for these human precursors (i.e., cytoblast, zygote, fetus) existed before the abortion "debate" ever did, and I doubt that was merely some elaborate maneuvering of a liberal conspiracy of Communist Satan-worshiping doctors.

We'll skip the ethics section, because this entire section cannot stand on its own and is predicated by the previous section, so let's skip to conveniently-mis-explained math analogy:

This is an asymptote. (Dear math geniuses, please avert your eyes while I attempt to explain this. It won’t be pretty.) See how the curved line goes seems to slope down, but never quite touches the X-axis? Theoretically, this line will continue to slope downward infinitely, NEVER touching the X-axis.  (editor's note: this is the picture that author used, for reference.)

And theoretically, it will also continue to slope upwards continuously, never touching the Y-axis, either, which must mean... *GASP* NONE OF US IS REALLY HUMAN HOLY BALLS THIS IS ALL AN ILLUSION MATRIX MATRIX WHERE IS NEO

To be fair, you said that this would be not completely accurate, math-wise, and that's fine - however, if you're gonna make an analogy, stick to analogies that don't have holes in them.  You yourself said:

Now in my head, I think of the X-axis as the point of conception of human life.[...]Pro-lifers can all agree that the asymptote will NEVER touch the X-axis, no matter how much pro-choicers want it to.

Okay, so in keeping with your analogy, if the X-axis is the "point of conception," but said asymptote never touches it... waitaminute, does that mean that conception never occurs?  And furthermore, doesn't that mean that you're REALLY saying that pro-lifers don't WANT it to touch the X-axis, i.e., for conception not to occur, and pro-choicers DO want it to occur?  Hmmm... I'm getting some mixed messages here.

Math hint: honestly, what you were looking for in that particular analogy [and, in your defense, you were thinking along the right lines, just the wrong shape] is a curve that emerges quickly, cleanly, and firmly from the X-axis and ne'er comes the closer to it - so here are two suggestions:

1 - an exponential curve - pros: it can [roughly] be made to pass through near [but not at!] the origin (0,0) and never touch the X-axis after that; cons: if you want to get technical, prior to the origin it's getting all sorts of intimate [and then less so, in a -y fashion] with the X-axis, but I suppose we can just attribute that to like, pre-ejaculatory/pre-follicular-burst/pre-puberty/pre-birthOHGODHALLOFMIRRORSINCEPTIONAGAIN

2 - a cubed root curve, where x is >= 0 would also work, assuming you're willing to revise your "point of conception" to the Y-axis [side note: axes aren't points - they're lines, but now we're just being pedantic] and, again, ignore the shenanigans occurring to the "south" and "west" of the origin that still exist but are tragically forgotten... just like all the wasted sperm and eggs that never go on to create a human life [I'd like to put a number to this, but the best I can do is like something that's 40% of the ~105 billion humans [[estimated]] multiplied by 180 million [[average number of sperm per ejaculatory emission]] and frankly I tried to punch that into my calculator and it pulled a knife on me and backed slowly out of the room, but call it a BIG NUMBER] but it'd at least fit the analogy you're trying to make I guess?

You cannot undo conception.  Our solution? Don’t draw the graph in the first place; i.e. don’t get pregnant!

BUT THE LINE NEVER STARTS AND NEVER ENDS IT IS INFINITE AND THIS IS WHY WE DO NOT USE TORTURED MATHEMATICAL ANALOGIES

Now, doesn’t this make us sound just a little naive when we use terms like “blob of cells”?

Hey, you know what's naive?  Forcefully shoving analogies into places they aren't designed to go.

But so yo', that's a reply.
Posted by at 1 comment:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)