1. are you against people accumulating wealth at all? do you want everyone to live paycheck-to-paycheck? If not, at what rate are people allowed to accumulate wealth? or is there a maximum amount of money someone is allowed to have saved up? If so then what is the maximum amount and what is your moral proof for that amount? like, for all of this you have to have a proof that what you're doing is morally correct, don't you think? I suppose I'm assuming from the beginning that it's morally correct to respect a person's body and allow them to have control over it.
2. I think that maybe it's really bad for me to be friends with someone who hates the free market? because I believe in consent, I believe in bodily integrity, I believe in self ownership, those are all the same thing, they're just different words for the same thing. and I can't change what I believe about that, like it's possible that I could change my mind and decide not to believe in the concept of consent anymore, but I'm 32 years old and my belief in consent has only gotten more and more consistent as I've gotten older, so I find it very unlikely that it's going to change. this is like an integral part of who I am. and no one would think that it was appropriate for me to be friends with someone who thought that in the Utopia that comes after the revolution, no trans people will exist. no one would expect me to be friends with someone who dreams of eliminating bisexual people. so why should I be friends with someone who wants to eliminate me because I believe in the free market? it makes me feel gross to think that I'm friends with someone who wants to kill me and is only holding back on doing so because they don't want to face the consequences from the government, cops, whatever. or maybe they're hoping that they can persuade me to stop believing in consent before the revolution comes. but I don't feel okay with that anymore than I feel okay with someone hoping that I'll stop being the gender I am or having the sexuality that I have. and I don't know really that you want me to change this fundamental part of myself or that you want to kill me, but you say a lot of the same things as a lot of people on Facebook who have explicitly said that they want to kill me, so that makes me worried and that's why I get mad and say fuck you and hang up on you.
Sunday, September 8, 2019
Wednesday, May 30, 2018
This doesn't belong here.
I think a lot of things that I know a lot of people think are racist.
I don't know how many people, really. 10 people feels like a lot, but there's like 7.000.000 people in the world, so 10 really isn't that much. I don't know what percentage of the people in the world think it's racist for me to decline to especially go out of my way to avoid a person who is praying on a public sidewalk.
I know there's a lot of people who don't think those things are racist, but most of them are terribly blatantly racist themselves. I don't want them on my side. I've known like maybe 2 people who agreed with me on the things and weren't complete garbage
or were they? One of them ended up unfriending me after being best friends for 10+ years because they thought my feminism was too extreme and my pronouns were stupid (and i just use masculine pronouns) and they looked down on me for not having a bachelor's degree. The other one I'm thinking of lost all his facebook friends because he was accused of sexual harassment or something.
Anyway.
I usually don't say the things. It kind of hurts.
Oh I can just imagine someone saying that I am like "entitled" or something because i say it hurts me that I don't get to express my opinion.
It kind of hurts in the same way it hurts to keep quiet about your gender or sexuality.
And the people who would call me entitled for wanting to express my opinion say i have every right to express my gender and sexuality. I don't see a relevant difference.
In both cases, it's (partially) about closeness. I'm friends with some people, allegedly, so I want to be able to say what I think. Having to keep quiet means you're not really friends with those people. That hurts.
Also, I think the things I think are right. I think people are being hurt by the widespread wrong beliefs.
I think I also think things that people think are bigoted in various other ways. There are definitely people who think I'm ableist, ageist, sexist, and idk what else. But the racism is the thing that comes up the most these days.
This should really be in my Rilian Rlog, but I've been trying to only put things I put a lot of time into on there, so it's just going to hang out here for now.
I don't know how many people, really. 10 people feels like a lot, but there's like 7.000.000 people in the world, so 10 really isn't that much. I don't know what percentage of the people in the world think it's racist for me to decline to especially go out of my way to avoid a person who is praying on a public sidewalk.
I know there's a lot of people who don't think those things are racist, but most of them are terribly blatantly racist themselves. I don't want them on my side. I've known like maybe 2 people who agreed with me on the things and weren't complete garbage
or were they? One of them ended up unfriending me after being best friends for 10+ years because they thought my feminism was too extreme and my pronouns were stupid (and i just use masculine pronouns) and they looked down on me for not having a bachelor's degree. The other one I'm thinking of lost all his facebook friends because he was accused of sexual harassment or something.
Anyway.
I usually don't say the things. It kind of hurts.
Oh I can just imagine someone saying that I am like "entitled" or something because i say it hurts me that I don't get to express my opinion.
It kind of hurts in the same way it hurts to keep quiet about your gender or sexuality.
And the people who would call me entitled for wanting to express my opinion say i have every right to express my gender and sexuality. I don't see a relevant difference.
In both cases, it's (partially) about closeness. I'm friends with some people, allegedly, so I want to be able to say what I think. Having to keep quiet means you're not really friends with those people. That hurts.
Also, I think the things I think are right. I think people are being hurt by the widespread wrong beliefs.
I think I also think things that people think are bigoted in various other ways. There are definitely people who think I'm ableist, ageist, sexist, and idk what else. But the racism is the thing that comes up the most these days.
This should really be in my Rilian Rlog, but I've been trying to only put things I put a lot of time into on there, so it's just going to hang out here for now.
Saturday, October 13, 2012
GDP
In 2004, I took an economics class in community college. I got an A in it. It was easy to memorize the definitions, and that's pretty much all it was. But the book for the class talked about GDP (gross domestic product) at one point, and it said that there can never be a full account of the GDP because you can't count when a mechanic fixes his own car, etc. So, that would mean that the GDP is really everything anyone does in the country. Me typing this right now is adding to the GDP. It won't get counted, because I'm not paying anyone, I'm not paying myself, to do it for me. But it is part of the GDP. If fixing your own car counts, then typing something up yourself, when you could have hired someone to do it for you, counts.
Right now I'm taking a class called "intro to political science". The book for it, called Power & Choice, talks about the GDP's of different countries, specifically the per-person PPPGDP, where PPP means "purchasing power parity", which means that if they say the per-person GDP of a country is $40000, that means that the average person in that country can buy all the same stuff that a USAer could buy in USA if they had $40000. And then the book claims that the ppPPPGDP of some country (I forget which) is $800. No. That's not possible. You said, book, YOU SAID that it would be as if I, a USAer, had to live on $800 for a whole year. There's no way I can do that. I can't even buy food for less than $1200 a year. Even $1200 is just theoretical. But I've looked into what you would need to eat to not die of malnutrition, I've looked for the cheapest prices at different stores, and there's no way in hell you can eat for less $1200 a year, where I live. And then on top of that there's clothes, and a place to live, and medical care. You might say, oh, well, they're all just starving and sick. But no, they would be dead. Which would make the ppPPPGDP go up. And $800 is the average, and I'll eat my hat if there aren't some relatively rich people in that country, which means there are also some people who are making way below $800 a year, so they, according to the book's reasoning, should be dead. But they're not, and we know they're not because of how low the ppPPPGDP is in that country.
So why aren't they? I asked a friend about it and they came up with a possible explanation. It could be that all the poor people in that country, and other countries with "low GDP's", live in huts with 40 other people, and they repair the huts themselves with stuff they find outside, and they have a goat or something, and they have a garden or they gather food from the woods or whatever, and none of this gets counted in the GDP.
GDP only counts when money gets traded. And it even counts when money is traded but there's nothing new being produced. Like, the same shirt being sold at walmart and then later at goodwill or something. I don't know. Money changing hands doesn't mean that anything is being produced, though. And things being produced doesn't mean that money is changing hands.
Conclusion: GDP tells us nothing important.
Right now I'm taking a class called "intro to political science". The book for it, called Power & Choice, talks about the GDP's of different countries, specifically the per-person PPPGDP, where PPP means "purchasing power parity", which means that if they say the per-person GDP of a country is $40000, that means that the average person in that country can buy all the same stuff that a USAer could buy in USA if they had $40000. And then the book claims that the ppPPPGDP of some country (I forget which) is $800. No. That's not possible. You said, book, YOU SAID that it would be as if I, a USAer, had to live on $800 for a whole year. There's no way I can do that. I can't even buy food for less than $1200 a year. Even $1200 is just theoretical. But I've looked into what you would need to eat to not die of malnutrition, I've looked for the cheapest prices at different stores, and there's no way in hell you can eat for less $1200 a year, where I live. And then on top of that there's clothes, and a place to live, and medical care. You might say, oh, well, they're all just starving and sick. But no, they would be dead. Which would make the ppPPPGDP go up. And $800 is the average, and I'll eat my hat if there aren't some relatively rich people in that country, which means there are also some people who are making way below $800 a year, so they, according to the book's reasoning, should be dead. But they're not, and we know they're not because of how low the ppPPPGDP is in that country.
So why aren't they? I asked a friend about it and they came up with a possible explanation. It could be that all the poor people in that country, and other countries with "low GDP's", live in huts with 40 other people, and they repair the huts themselves with stuff they find outside, and they have a goat or something, and they have a garden or they gather food from the woods or whatever, and none of this gets counted in the GDP.
GDP only counts when money gets traded. And it even counts when money is traded but there's nothing new being produced. Like, the same shirt being sold at walmart and then later at goodwill or something. I don't know. Money changing hands doesn't mean that anything is being produced, though. And things being produced doesn't mean that money is changing hands.
Conclusion: GDP tells us nothing important.
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Human meat.
I've been eating way less meat than I used to. I used to eat like 4 chicken sandwiches in one day. With bacon. So, it's good that I'm not doing that anymore, right. But sometimes I eat meat still because it's delicious and everyone around me is eating meat all the time. But at least I'm eating less of it....
Then I thought, what if there's a person who is a serial killer and then they decide that instead of killing once a month, they'll just kill once a year. But they can't give it up completely because killing gives them some serious pleasure, or alleviates some serious pain they have. Would I think, "Oh how good that you only kill once a year."? No, I wouldn't. I would say they should do anything they have to to avoid killing. Like, take pills for whatever mental problem you have or whatever, go to counseling, commit yourself to an institution.
Then I thought, what if a person lived in a society were it was normal to eat human meat? And then they started thinking that maybe it was wrong. But their family kept eating human meat, and all their favorite foods had human meat in it. They would make their own version of the food without meat, but it wasn't the same. And everyone else was eating the human meat, and enjoying it, and they wanted that feeling, and they wanted to be included, and that human was already dead anyway, so what does it hurt.
That was the emotional convincing I needed. It doesn't matter how yummy hamburgers are (and they are seriously yummy); it's damned evil to eat one. (One that was brutally killed anyway. If an animal died of natural causes, then maybe it would be ok to eat it. Whatever.) At least I can remember what they tasted like.
I feel a little disturbed by the fact that I'm holding onto the memory of eating a hamburger. I would definitely not want to be friends with someone who cherished the memory of imprisoning and then murdering a human, or of eating human meat that was ill-gotten. But that's what I have to do for now. And I think it's pretty good progress.
I thought of this on saturday, I think. I went to a restaurant on sunday for foothor's doo, and I accidentally ate meat because even though I said I didn't want any meat on my food, the waiter apparently didn't understand. I haven't eat any meat since then, a whole awesome 3 days. I have been eating milk and eggs but seriously I don't intend for that to be long-term. I'm working on it.
Then I thought, what if there's a person who is a serial killer and then they decide that instead of killing once a month, they'll just kill once a year. But they can't give it up completely because killing gives them some serious pleasure, or alleviates some serious pain they have. Would I think, "Oh how good that you only kill once a year."? No, I wouldn't. I would say they should do anything they have to to avoid killing. Like, take pills for whatever mental problem you have or whatever, go to counseling, commit yourself to an institution.
Then I thought, what if a person lived in a society were it was normal to eat human meat? And then they started thinking that maybe it was wrong. But their family kept eating human meat, and all their favorite foods had human meat in it. They would make their own version of the food without meat, but it wasn't the same. And everyone else was eating the human meat, and enjoying it, and they wanted that feeling, and they wanted to be included, and that human was already dead anyway, so what does it hurt.
That was the emotional convincing I needed. It doesn't matter how yummy hamburgers are (and they are seriously yummy); it's damned evil to eat one. (One that was brutally killed anyway. If an animal died of natural causes, then maybe it would be ok to eat it. Whatever.) At least I can remember what they tasted like.
I feel a little disturbed by the fact that I'm holding onto the memory of eating a hamburger. I would definitely not want to be friends with someone who cherished the memory of imprisoning and then murdering a human, or of eating human meat that was ill-gotten. But that's what I have to do for now. And I think it's pretty good progress.
I thought of this on saturday, I think. I went to a restaurant on sunday for foothor's doo, and I accidentally ate meat because even though I said I didn't want any meat on my food, the waiter apparently didn't understand. I haven't eat any meat since then, a whole awesome 3 days. I have been eating milk and eggs but seriously I don't intend for that to be long-term. I'm working on it.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Baby
Lovejoyfeminism has an entry that I can't find where the author says she doesn't know how to explain her pregnancy to her kid because she can't say it's a baby in her tummy, because it's not a baby yet, but she can't say it's a fetus because her kid doesn't know what a fetus is.
I could tell her kid what a fetus is. It's a baby that's still in the womb. My biology book has some illustrations of babies at various ages in the womb that could show her exactly what a "baby in the womb" is.
It is totally accurate to call a fetus a baby. Why? Because that is one of the common uses of the word "baby". Baby is not a technical term, so it doesn't have a precise definition. It tends to refer to things that are young or to things that people love. People sometimes call their friends and spouses baby, to express love. A fetus is definitely something young, and for many people it's also something they love. I'm not saying it's wrong to call it a fetus. That term is correct. But baby is also correct.
The pro-choice crazies often say, "It's not a baby, it's a fetus." But then after it's born, you could just as correctly (incorrectly) say, "It's not a baby, it's a neonate." The technical terms are embryo, fetus, neonate, and infant. And the word baby can refer to all of those, and more. But using the same word for all of them doesn't mean we're equating an embryo with an infant. Like, the japanese word for leg is the same as the word for foot. They're both "ashi". That doesn't mean that japanese people think that a foot is exactly the same thing as a leg. It just means they have something relevant in common. And an embryo, fetus, neonate, infant, and all the other things that the word baby can refer to, do have something relevant in common: They're all young and/or loved. So when someone refers to a fetus or embryo as a baby, they're telling you what they find relevant -- that it's their child and they love it and they care for it, and they'll keep feeling that way after it comes out of the womb.
I've pointed this out to the crazies many times. I tell them that it is correct to call a fetus a baby, because that is a common usage of the word baby. And that's how language works. And baby isn't a technical term. They never accept this, or even respond directly. But I think I've figured out what they're thinking.
They think that if a fetus is called a baby, then that makes it a person, and that would make it immoral to get an abortion.
There are two problems with this. 1, fallacy of equivocation; 2, bodily integrity.
The fallacy of equivocation is when you have the same word in two different contexts and then you claim that the word has to mean the same exact thing on both contexts. For example
A chess player is a person; therefore a bad chessplayer is a bad person.
Chess player is not a synonym for a person. Also, the word bad has two different meanings here. First it's modifying chessplaying ability, then it's modifying a person's character.
The pro-choice crazies's argument about the word baby uses a fallacy of equivocation. Calling something a baby does not necessarily make it a person. People sometimes refer to projects or objects such as cars as their babies. And I'm totally willing to agree that there's a period of time at the beginning of a human's gestation during which they are not a person, because they don't even have a brain or any thoughts or feelings. But they're still human, and they're still young, and people can still feel love for them. So they fall with in one or more of the definitions or connotations of the word baby, but not of person. Language is complicated like that.
But even if a fetus is a person, that still doesn't make abortion immoral. Here's the article that convinced me: Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion
Read it. Basically it says that you still are not obligated to share your body with someone, even if they are a person.
So, it's not incorrect to call a fetus or embryo a baby, because it falls under one or more of the meanings of that word. And it's not a danger to the pro-choice stance, because something being a baby doesn't mean it's a person, and something being a person doesn't mean you have to sacrifice anything of yourself to it.
I could tell her kid what a fetus is. It's a baby that's still in the womb. My biology book has some illustrations of babies at various ages in the womb that could show her exactly what a "baby in the womb" is.
It is totally accurate to call a fetus a baby. Why? Because that is one of the common uses of the word "baby". Baby is not a technical term, so it doesn't have a precise definition. It tends to refer to things that are young or to things that people love. People sometimes call their friends and spouses baby, to express love. A fetus is definitely something young, and for many people it's also something they love. I'm not saying it's wrong to call it a fetus. That term is correct. But baby is also correct.
The pro-choice crazies often say, "It's not a baby, it's a fetus." But then after it's born, you could just as correctly (incorrectly) say, "It's not a baby, it's a neonate." The technical terms are embryo, fetus, neonate, and infant. And the word baby can refer to all of those, and more. But using the same word for all of them doesn't mean we're equating an embryo with an infant. Like, the japanese word for leg is the same as the word for foot. They're both "ashi". That doesn't mean that japanese people think that a foot is exactly the same thing as a leg. It just means they have something relevant in common. And an embryo, fetus, neonate, infant, and all the other things that the word baby can refer to, do have something relevant in common: They're all young and/or loved. So when someone refers to a fetus or embryo as a baby, they're telling you what they find relevant -- that it's their child and they love it and they care for it, and they'll keep feeling that way after it comes out of the womb.
I've pointed this out to the crazies many times. I tell them that it is correct to call a fetus a baby, because that is a common usage of the word baby. And that's how language works. And baby isn't a technical term. They never accept this, or even respond directly. But I think I've figured out what they're thinking.
They think that if a fetus is called a baby, then that makes it a person, and that would make it immoral to get an abortion.
There are two problems with this. 1, fallacy of equivocation; 2, bodily integrity.
The fallacy of equivocation is when you have the same word in two different contexts and then you claim that the word has to mean the same exact thing on both contexts. For example
A chess player is a person; therefore a bad chessplayer is a bad person.
Chess player is not a synonym for a person. Also, the word bad has two different meanings here. First it's modifying chessplaying ability, then it's modifying a person's character.
The pro-choice crazies's argument about the word baby uses a fallacy of equivocation. Calling something a baby does not necessarily make it a person. People sometimes refer to projects or objects such as cars as their babies. And I'm totally willing to agree that there's a period of time at the beginning of a human's gestation during which they are not a person, because they don't even have a brain or any thoughts or feelings. But they're still human, and they're still young, and people can still feel love for them. So they fall with in one or more of the definitions or connotations of the word baby, but not of person. Language is complicated like that.
But even if a fetus is a person, that still doesn't make abortion immoral. Here's the article that convinced me: Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion
Read it. Basically it says that you still are not obligated to share your body with someone, even if they are a person.
So, it's not incorrect to call a fetus or embryo a baby, because it falls under one or more of the meanings of that word. And it's not a danger to the pro-choice stance, because something being a baby doesn't mean it's a person, and something being a person doesn't mean you have to sacrifice anything of yourself to it.
Charmed
I used to watch Charmed every day. I got bored with it. Amazingly there are still some episodes I haven't seen.
Anyway, what's the deal with this show?
There are demons, who are "evil" but supposedly don't have free will, so then it's not really their fault that they do bad things, right? Really, they are totally innocent pawns. Yet there's an episode where Piper tortures a demon. The demons supposedly don't have souls, yet they often express a desire to keep living. A demon falls in love, a demon sacrifices his life to save his half-brother (who is half demon and half human), a demon asks to be turned human because she wants to experience "good" and "feelings". The demons supposedly get their power and take their orders from a thing called "the source of all evil". The source can be killed, but then a different demon becomes the new source. None of this makes any sense!!
There are these people called elders. They're like angels or something. But they're not like the opposite of demons. They don't fight the demons. Instead, they turn dead people into these things called whitelighters, and then send the whitelighters to liase with certain humans who are witches, to give the witches vague instructions about how to fight the demons. Demons are evil, elders are good, and they are battling over humans. Why can't the elders just go and destroy the demons themselves? I don't know.
Humans are not considered to be good or evil. They're called innocents. They can be swayed by good or evil. If a human kills another human, that's not evil, and the witches are not allowed to use their powers to kill the murderer. If a witch uses their powers to "punish the guilty" rather than "protect the innocent", then the witch turns evil. But if a demon kills a human, the witches can totally kill the demon. Even though demons have no free will and are just pawns of "the source" or whatever. Also, a demon doesn't even have to have done anything wrong to merit being killed. It just has to exist, and then if a witch sees them, they get dead.
They also make references to a "god". A god that is greater than the elders. Whatever. This show makes no sense.
Anyway, what's the deal with this show?
There are demons, who are "evil" but supposedly don't have free will, so then it's not really their fault that they do bad things, right? Really, they are totally innocent pawns. Yet there's an episode where Piper tortures a demon. The demons supposedly don't have souls, yet they often express a desire to keep living. A demon falls in love, a demon sacrifices his life to save his half-brother (who is half demon and half human), a demon asks to be turned human because she wants to experience "good" and "feelings". The demons supposedly get their power and take their orders from a thing called "the source of all evil". The source can be killed, but then a different demon becomes the new source. None of this makes any sense!!
There are these people called elders. They're like angels or something. But they're not like the opposite of demons. They don't fight the demons. Instead, they turn dead people into these things called whitelighters, and then send the whitelighters to liase with certain humans who are witches, to give the witches vague instructions about how to fight the demons. Demons are evil, elders are good, and they are battling over humans. Why can't the elders just go and destroy the demons themselves? I don't know.
Humans are not considered to be good or evil. They're called innocents. They can be swayed by good or evil. If a human kills another human, that's not evil, and the witches are not allowed to use their powers to kill the murderer. If a witch uses their powers to "punish the guilty" rather than "protect the innocent", then the witch turns evil. But if a demon kills a human, the witches can totally kill the demon. Even though demons have no free will and are just pawns of "the source" or whatever. Also, a demon doesn't even have to have done anything wrong to merit being killed. It just has to exist, and then if a witch sees them, they get dead.
They also make references to a "god". A god that is greater than the elders. Whatever. This show makes no sense.
Friday, April 13, 2012
Gilmore Girls #9 Rory's Dance
I wanted to start with episode 1, but it somehow got deleted off my tv, and so I decided to just go ahead and do #9, since that's the one I was watching now. The point is to complain about all the things that annoy me in this series. I've seen the series straight through like 10 times. There's a lot to complain about.
-
Lorelai is picking the avacado off her food, which apparently is supremely offensive to Emily.
Emily accuses Lorelai of not reading the chilton news letter. Instead of disregarding the comment or saying "who gives a fuck", Lorelai lies and says that she did read it. Emily tests her by asking her what the picture on the cover was. As if one would necessarily remember the picture on the cover. Her not remembering it doesn't prove that she didn't read any of the newsletter, and her yes remembering it just proves that she saw the picture. --> Emily is stupid, and also a bitch.
Lorelai is mad that Emily made a donation in Rory's name. Why does she care?
Rory says she doesn't want to go to the dance, and Emily asks Lorelai, "What did you say to her?" But, stupid Emily, Lorelai didn't even know about the dance until just a moment ago, and you've all been sitting here together, so you know everything she might have said about the dance. Also, why does Emily give a shit if Rory goes to a dance or not.
Rory doesn't have any friends at Chilton, yet Lorelai encourages her to go to the dance. If she had even one friend to go with, it could make sense, but it doesn't make sense to go to a party full of people who either hate you or feel completely neutral about you.
Rory is afraid to ask Dean to the dance and doesn't think he is her boyfriend, even though in a previous episode she brought him cookies and they vacuumed each other's faces.
Emily calls and criticizes Loreilai for having lots of clutter in her house. Then she says how even though Rory may think the dance is frivolous now, later in life she will regret missing it. Isn't that, like, bass-ackwards? Don't people usually think that stuff is life-changing when they're 16, and then later they realize it didn't matter? Anyway, I went I guess like 3 gay-ass dances in middle school, and then I decided they weren't ever going to get any better, and I didn't go to any prom, and I don't regret it.
Lorelai tells Emily that she is making Rory a dress for the dance. Emily thinks that's, like, the most barbaric thing she's ever heard of, and snottily asks if Lorelai is making the dress out of curtains.
Emily complains about how she is going to be missing out on the once-in-a-lifetime event of seeing Rory off to the dance. Really? She's never going to go to another dance? My schools had them all the freaking time. Also, Emily, didn't you have a daughter of your own? Lorelai got pregnant when she was 16, so, boo-hoo, you didn't get to watch her do the coming out party, or see her off to prom, but she probably went to dances before that, right? Rory isn't your daughter, so really, why don't you back the fuck off.
Lorelai invites Emily over, and now I realize that that is what Emily wanted all along and had been bitchily hinting at.
Tristan comes to bug Rory while she's in line to buy tickets to the dance. He says she must be going alone because if she had a date, then he would be buying the tickets. As if going to a dance alone is immoral or shameful or something. Then Rory tells him she does have a date. Why is she talking to him!? Why doesn't she just turn and stare straight ahead and ignore him and keep reading her book? Tristan says the guy must be cheap. Fucking gey. What is the stupid reasoning that leads to the idea that men should pay for everything? Rory and Dean are both fucking teenagers. There's no reason to assume that he'd have more money than her.
Tristan says that he wanted to go to the dance with Rory and she tells him haha no. So he poutily says he'll take someone named Sissy. Rory says, "I'll send her a condolence card," to which Tristan replies, "At least she won't be buying her own ticket." Wat. I don't get it. Why is that bad? I'm confused. Is it supposed to be shameful for a woman to spend money? I guess the assumption is that what all women want is a man who works his ass off to get bucketloads of money just so he can buy frivolous shit for her. And Tristan is saying that Rory is missing out on this highest of goals that a woman can hope to achieve. Whatever.
Paris is mad at Rory for being mean to Tristan. She disregards the past instances in which Tristan has been mean to Rory. But I guess, since Paris is mean to Rory in the exact same way, she thinks that it's just right for Rory to be treated that way, and Rory is the one being unreasonable by expecting to be treated well. I guess that's what Rory gets for being new to the school.
Paris worships Tristan and thinks no guy could be better. Then she says that Rory probably doesn't even have a date and will make a stupid excuse at the last minute to miss the dance.
The doorbell rings, and Lorelai calls "We're in here!" Emily comes in and criticizes her for this.
Emily wants to take a picture of "the big entrance". She gets her camera ready and then calls for Rory to come in. She comes in wearing a bib-napkin and eating a taco. Emily can't believe that a person would ever dare to eat food, and says to Lorelai, "She has been living with you too long." WTF. She's been living with her her whole life, retard.
Lorelai hurt her back earlier. Sookie mentions something about it, and Emily demands to know what's going on. Lorelai gives in and tells her. Why? She should have just told her "Shut up and mind your own fucking business, or get out of my house."
The dress Lorelai made is so good that Emily thinks it's store-bought. Ha.
Dean honks outside, and Rory goes to meet him. Emily implies that this makes Rory some kind of trash. Rory explains that that's what she and Dean agreed on, but Emily doesn't care and insists that Rory wait for Dean to come to the door. If I were in Rory's place, I'd have said Bye and walked out the door the second I realized what Emily's objection was. But Rory stays there and does what Emily wants. Why?
Lorelai points out that she's already met Dean, so this really isn't necessary. Emily says that she hasn't met him yet. Again, Emily, didn't you have your own fucking daughter? Back the fuck off.
Dean honks several more times, and Emily calls him stupid.
Hey, why can't Rory at least open the door and wave to Dean to come in? Why doesn't that fall within your stupid "manners"?
Dean finally comes and rings the doorbell. Rory runs to the door. Emily says, "Don't rush. A lady never rushes." Well I'm not a lady, you fucking crazy bitch, so shut the fuck up! is what Rory should have said. Rory rushes anyway. Small victory #1.
Emily calls Dean "young man" and acts as if he's a criminal.
Emily, glaring at Dean as if he were a Nazi, tells Dean her name. Dean says hi. Emily is offended by this, but restrains herself and just says "hello".
Lorelai tells them to have fun, and Emily tells them to be home by 11:00. Hey, stupid, are you forgetting which kid is yours again?
Lorelai whispers to Rory that she can stay out till 12:00. Lorelai, Emily will never learn if you don't correct her mistakes.
Emily insists on staying to take care of Lorelai because of her injured back. Lorelai tries to convince her to leave, but ends up giving in. Gah, why!? Emily tries to spin it as caring for her daughter, but it's really just a chance for her to be in control of something.
Lorelai stands up off the couch to try to convince Emily that she's ok. Emily demands that she move, as in walk around. What a bitch. Lorelai doesn't want you there, so fucking leave!
Emily decided to make tea. Why? I don't know. Maybe tea is supposed to help "back spasms". Then she says, "Please tell me you have something besides Lipton." I'm here to help you, and I'm going to do you the favor of making you tea, but if all you have a brand of tea that I consider trashy, then I'm going to rage at you, and if you fight back at all, I'll tell you that you have no manners. But Lorelai just ignores that comment.
Emily pretends not to notice when other people are exasperated by her.
Emily is looking for some candles ("bacara candlesticks" or something, I can't tell what she's saying) that she gave Lorelai as a present. Lorelai guiltily tells her she exchanged them for a monkey lamp. Emily criticizes Lorelai for the "bad breeding of returning a gift". Bad breeding? Gee, I wonder whose fault that could be. She also criticizes Lorelai for having bad taste and trading in something of substance (candles) for a "ridiculous sinister barroom decoration" (the lamp). Candles are something of substance? Technically, yes, but not in the way you mean.
Paris, who claims to hate Rory, comes up to talk to her for some reason.
Tristan is super sad, and makes out with Sissy.
Lorelai being nice to Emily. She hopes that if she does this enough, it will rub off on Emily and she'll stop being a bitch. It never works.
Paris's date comes up to ask for Rory's phone number. Rory points out that maybe he shouldn't be hitting on other girls when he's here with Paris, and he says that Paris is his cousin. Remember how Paris was saying that Rory wouldn't be able to get a date? Ha.
Lorelai tells Emily that she made Rory's dress. Emily kind of looks like she wants to throw up, but she reins herself in.
Paris screams about something.
Tristan confronts Dean. Stupidity ensues. Dean tries to walk around Tristan, but Tristan keep blocking his path. He does it again to Rory. Dean pushes him, and Tristan acts like Dean is the one who started it. It ends with Dean threatening Tristan. Rory and Dean leave.
Paris asks Tristan if he's ok, again ignoring any wrong Tristan might have done.
Rory and Dean stop at Miss Patty's after leaving the dance. They sit on a bean bag chair and read a book. They fall asleep. Miss Patty comes in with her yoga class at 5:30 in the morning. They gently and nicely wake up Rory, but when Dean asks what time it is, they all glare at him as if he's done something wrong.
Rory is horrified at the "mistake" and tells Dean that he shouldn't be anywhere near her house right now. Really? Lorelai hasn't even been the strict parent. Will she really be mad at Dean because of this? Will she, like Miss Patty et al, assume that Dean has "nefarious" intentions? That wouldn't seem to fit in with Lorelai's character. It seems that she would just ask Rory what happened and then realize it wasn't a big deal. Or even a deal at all.
Emily wakes up Lorelai at 5:30 and tells her that Rory isn't here. She insists that Lorelai call the police. Before she can find the phone, it rings and it's Miss Patty calling. Lorelai tells Emily that Rory and Dean were at Miss Patty's. Emily says, "What is that, a motel?"
Emily asks in "what state" Miss Patty found them. Like, with all their clothes off, mid-coitus?
Lorelai says she doesn't know, and they should just wait and talk to Rory to find out what happened. Emily says, "We know what happened!" As if it's a bad thing. All as if it's bad for people to have sex. IT'S NOT.
Lorelai repeats that they can't assume anything. Emily says that she's watched Lorelai do a lot of stupid things in her life, and she's held her tongue. Ha!
Emily says she won't stand by while Lorelai lets Rory ruin her life (by getting pregnant).
Emily goes on a tirade. She asks Lorelai, "What kind of mother are you, to allow this to happen to her?" Lorelai responds, "What kind of mother were you?"
Emily says, if she was so controlling, why couldn't she stop Lorelai from getting pregnant? Right, that's a good defense. "I wasn't 100% tyrannical! Only 98%!"
Lorelai tells Emily to get out. This has been one of the few times that she stands up to Emily in the slightest. She tells Emily that she did not throw her life away by getting pregnant. She defends Rory. Emily leaves.
Rory comes in and tries to think Lorelai for defending her. But now Lorelai is all mad at Rory for staying out all night and says that she has to go on the pill.
Rory says that Lorelai knows that nothing happened and that it was just an accident, but she mad that Rory screwed up in front of Emily. Why would it be bad if something had happened? Why is staying out all night a screw up?
Episode is over.
-
Lorelai is picking the avacado off her food, which apparently is supremely offensive to Emily.
Emily accuses Lorelai of not reading the chilton news letter. Instead of disregarding the comment or saying "who gives a fuck", Lorelai lies and says that she did read it. Emily tests her by asking her what the picture on the cover was. As if one would necessarily remember the picture on the cover. Her not remembering it doesn't prove that she didn't read any of the newsletter, and her yes remembering it just proves that she saw the picture. --> Emily is stupid, and also a bitch.
Lorelai is mad that Emily made a donation in Rory's name. Why does she care?
Rory says she doesn't want to go to the dance, and Emily asks Lorelai, "What did you say to her?" But, stupid Emily, Lorelai didn't even know about the dance until just a moment ago, and you've all been sitting here together, so you know everything she might have said about the dance. Also, why does Emily give a shit if Rory goes to a dance or not.
Rory doesn't have any friends at Chilton, yet Lorelai encourages her to go to the dance. If she had even one friend to go with, it could make sense, but it doesn't make sense to go to a party full of people who either hate you or feel completely neutral about you.
Rory is afraid to ask Dean to the dance and doesn't think he is her boyfriend, even though in a previous episode she brought him cookies and they vacuumed each other's faces.
Emily calls and criticizes Loreilai for having lots of clutter in her house. Then she says how even though Rory may think the dance is frivolous now, later in life she will regret missing it. Isn't that, like, bass-ackwards? Don't people usually think that stuff is life-changing when they're 16, and then later they realize it didn't matter? Anyway, I went I guess like 3 gay-ass dances in middle school, and then I decided they weren't ever going to get any better, and I didn't go to any prom, and I don't regret it.
Lorelai tells Emily that she is making Rory a dress for the dance. Emily thinks that's, like, the most barbaric thing she's ever heard of, and snottily asks if Lorelai is making the dress out of curtains.
Emily complains about how she is going to be missing out on the once-in-a-lifetime event of seeing Rory off to the dance. Really? She's never going to go to another dance? My schools had them all the freaking time. Also, Emily, didn't you have a daughter of your own? Lorelai got pregnant when she was 16, so, boo-hoo, you didn't get to watch her do the coming out party, or see her off to prom, but she probably went to dances before that, right? Rory isn't your daughter, so really, why don't you back the fuck off.
Lorelai invites Emily over, and now I realize that that is what Emily wanted all along and had been bitchily hinting at.
Tristan comes to bug Rory while she's in line to buy tickets to the dance. He says she must be going alone because if she had a date, then he would be buying the tickets. As if going to a dance alone is immoral or shameful or something. Then Rory tells him she does have a date. Why is she talking to him!? Why doesn't she just turn and stare straight ahead and ignore him and keep reading her book? Tristan says the guy must be cheap. Fucking gey. What is the stupid reasoning that leads to the idea that men should pay for everything? Rory and Dean are both fucking teenagers. There's no reason to assume that he'd have more money than her.
Tristan says that he wanted to go to the dance with Rory and she tells him haha no. So he poutily says he'll take someone named Sissy. Rory says, "I'll send her a condolence card," to which Tristan replies, "At least she won't be buying her own ticket." Wat. I don't get it. Why is that bad? I'm confused. Is it supposed to be shameful for a woman to spend money? I guess the assumption is that what all women want is a man who works his ass off to get bucketloads of money just so he can buy frivolous shit for her. And Tristan is saying that Rory is missing out on this highest of goals that a woman can hope to achieve. Whatever.
Paris is mad at Rory for being mean to Tristan. She disregards the past instances in which Tristan has been mean to Rory. But I guess, since Paris is mean to Rory in the exact same way, she thinks that it's just right for Rory to be treated that way, and Rory is the one being unreasonable by expecting to be treated well. I guess that's what Rory gets for being new to the school.
Paris worships Tristan and thinks no guy could be better. Then she says that Rory probably doesn't even have a date and will make a stupid excuse at the last minute to miss the dance.
The doorbell rings, and Lorelai calls "We're in here!" Emily comes in and criticizes her for this.
Emily wants to take a picture of "the big entrance". She gets her camera ready and then calls for Rory to come in. She comes in wearing a bib-napkin and eating a taco. Emily can't believe that a person would ever dare to eat food, and says to Lorelai, "She has been living with you too long." WTF. She's been living with her her whole life, retard.
Lorelai hurt her back earlier. Sookie mentions something about it, and Emily demands to know what's going on. Lorelai gives in and tells her. Why? She should have just told her "Shut up and mind your own fucking business, or get out of my house."
The dress Lorelai made is so good that Emily thinks it's store-bought. Ha.
Dean honks outside, and Rory goes to meet him. Emily implies that this makes Rory some kind of trash. Rory explains that that's what she and Dean agreed on, but Emily doesn't care and insists that Rory wait for Dean to come to the door. If I were in Rory's place, I'd have said Bye and walked out the door the second I realized what Emily's objection was. But Rory stays there and does what Emily wants. Why?
Lorelai points out that she's already met Dean, so this really isn't necessary. Emily says that she hasn't met him yet. Again, Emily, didn't you have your own fucking daughter? Back the fuck off.
Dean honks several more times, and Emily calls him stupid.
Hey, why can't Rory at least open the door and wave to Dean to come in? Why doesn't that fall within your stupid "manners"?
Dean finally comes and rings the doorbell. Rory runs to the door. Emily says, "Don't rush. A lady never rushes." Well I'm not a lady, you fucking crazy bitch, so shut the fuck up! is what Rory should have said. Rory rushes anyway. Small victory #1.
Emily calls Dean "young man" and acts as if he's a criminal.
Emily, glaring at Dean as if he were a Nazi, tells Dean her name. Dean says hi. Emily is offended by this, but restrains herself and just says "hello".
Lorelai tells them to have fun, and Emily tells them to be home by 11:00. Hey, stupid, are you forgetting which kid is yours again?
Lorelai whispers to Rory that she can stay out till 12:00. Lorelai, Emily will never learn if you don't correct her mistakes.
Emily insists on staying to take care of Lorelai because of her injured back. Lorelai tries to convince her to leave, but ends up giving in. Gah, why!? Emily tries to spin it as caring for her daughter, but it's really just a chance for her to be in control of something.
Lorelai stands up off the couch to try to convince Emily that she's ok. Emily demands that she move, as in walk around. What a bitch. Lorelai doesn't want you there, so fucking leave!
Emily decided to make tea. Why? I don't know. Maybe tea is supposed to help "back spasms". Then she says, "Please tell me you have something besides Lipton." I'm here to help you, and I'm going to do you the favor of making you tea, but if all you have a brand of tea that I consider trashy, then I'm going to rage at you, and if you fight back at all, I'll tell you that you have no manners. But Lorelai just ignores that comment.
Emily pretends not to notice when other people are exasperated by her.
Emily is looking for some candles ("bacara candlesticks" or something, I can't tell what she's saying) that she gave Lorelai as a present. Lorelai guiltily tells her she exchanged them for a monkey lamp. Emily criticizes Lorelai for the "bad breeding of returning a gift". Bad breeding? Gee, I wonder whose fault that could be. She also criticizes Lorelai for having bad taste and trading in something of substance (candles) for a "ridiculous sinister barroom decoration" (the lamp). Candles are something of substance? Technically, yes, but not in the way you mean.
Paris, who claims to hate Rory, comes up to talk to her for some reason.
Tristan is super sad, and makes out with Sissy.
Lorelai being nice to Emily. She hopes that if she does this enough, it will rub off on Emily and she'll stop being a bitch. It never works.
Paris's date comes up to ask for Rory's phone number. Rory points out that maybe he shouldn't be hitting on other girls when he's here with Paris, and he says that Paris is his cousin. Remember how Paris was saying that Rory wouldn't be able to get a date? Ha.
Lorelai tells Emily that she made Rory's dress. Emily kind of looks like she wants to throw up, but she reins herself in.
Paris screams about something.
Tristan confronts Dean. Stupidity ensues. Dean tries to walk around Tristan, but Tristan keep blocking his path. He does it again to Rory. Dean pushes him, and Tristan acts like Dean is the one who started it. It ends with Dean threatening Tristan. Rory and Dean leave.
Paris asks Tristan if he's ok, again ignoring any wrong Tristan might have done.
Rory and Dean stop at Miss Patty's after leaving the dance. They sit on a bean bag chair and read a book. They fall asleep. Miss Patty comes in with her yoga class at 5:30 in the morning. They gently and nicely wake up Rory, but when Dean asks what time it is, they all glare at him as if he's done something wrong.
Rory is horrified at the "mistake" and tells Dean that he shouldn't be anywhere near her house right now. Really? Lorelai hasn't even been the strict parent. Will she really be mad at Dean because of this? Will she, like Miss Patty et al, assume that Dean has "nefarious" intentions? That wouldn't seem to fit in with Lorelai's character. It seems that she would just ask Rory what happened and then realize it wasn't a big deal. Or even a deal at all.
Emily wakes up Lorelai at 5:30 and tells her that Rory isn't here. She insists that Lorelai call the police. Before she can find the phone, it rings and it's Miss Patty calling. Lorelai tells Emily that Rory and Dean were at Miss Patty's. Emily says, "What is that, a motel?"
Emily asks in "what state" Miss Patty found them. Like, with all their clothes off, mid-coitus?
Lorelai says she doesn't know, and they should just wait and talk to Rory to find out what happened. Emily says, "We know what happened!" As if it's a bad thing. All as if it's bad for people to have sex. IT'S NOT.
Lorelai repeats that they can't assume anything. Emily says that she's watched Lorelai do a lot of stupid things in her life, and she's held her tongue. Ha!
Emily says she won't stand by while Lorelai lets Rory ruin her life (by getting pregnant).
Emily goes on a tirade. She asks Lorelai, "What kind of mother are you, to allow this to happen to her?" Lorelai responds, "What kind of mother were you?"
Emily says, if she was so controlling, why couldn't she stop Lorelai from getting pregnant? Right, that's a good defense. "I wasn't 100% tyrannical! Only 98%!"
Lorelai tells Emily to get out. This has been one of the few times that she stands up to Emily in the slightest. She tells Emily that she did not throw her life away by getting pregnant. She defends Rory. Emily leaves.
Rory comes in and tries to think Lorelai for defending her. But now Lorelai is all mad at Rory for staying out all night and says that she has to go on the pill.
Rory says that Lorelai knows that nothing happened and that it was just an accident, but she mad that Rory screwed up in front of Emily. Why would it be bad if something had happened? Why is staying out all night a screw up?
Episode is over.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)