...

Japanese language learning blog.

So! Again, this blog, QuickJam, died as I became too busy for it. =(

I’ve been very active on my Japanese language blog, however, because the content is also part of my course, so it works quite well as part of my University activities.

I miss this blog though~! I shall have to try and make the time to post at least occasionally.

Are sex offenders and lads’ mags using the same language?

Psychologists presented men between the ages of 18 and 46 with a range of statements taken from magazines and from convicted rapists in the study, and gave the men different information about the source of the quotes. Men identified more with the comments made by rapists more than the quotes made in lads’ mags, but men identified more with quotes said to have been drawn from lads’ mags more than those said to have been comments by convicted rapists.

Dr Miranda Horvath, is concerned that lads’ magazine editors are not working hard enough to moderate the content of their magazines:  ”A lot of debate around the regulation of lads’ mags has been to do with how they affect children but less has been said about the influence they have on their intended audience of young men and the women with whom those men socialise.”

“These magazines support the legitimisation of sexist attitudes and behaviours and need to be more responsible about their portrayal of women, both in words and images. They give the appearance that sexism is acceptable and normal - when really it should be rejected and challenged. Rapists try to justify their actions, suggesting that women lead men on, or want sex even when they say no, and there is clearly something wrong when people feel the sort of language used in a lads’ mag could have come from a convicted rapist.”

Dr Peter Hegarty, of the University of Surrey’s Psychology Department, added: “There is a fundamental concern that the content of such magazines normalises the treatment of women as sexual objects. We are not killjoys or prudes who think that there should be no sexual information and media for young people.  But are teenage boys and young men best prepared for fulfilling love and sex when they normalise views about women that are disturbingly close to those mirrored in the language of sexual offenders?”

He added that young men should be given credible sex education and not have to rely on lads’ mags as a source of information as they grow up. [Source].

‘Captain America’ undergoes title change in three countries.

According to The New York Times, Marvel and Paramount Pictures, the people behind “Captain America,” were originally thinking of calling the movie “The First Avenger” in the overseas market. Not because of translation, but because the idea of a Captain America might be distasteful in areas where there are strong opinions against America and its foreign policies.

However, Paramount’s overseas operation said this was a bad idea, pointing out that Captain American is a well-known comic book figure and that would sell. A compromise has been reached: the movie will be called “Captain America: The First Avenger” everywhere except in Russia, Ukraine and South Korea.

According to the Times, Russia and Ukraine were decided on because the Cold War stopped Cap from becoming well-known in the country, so just hearing his name probably wouldn’t ring too many bells for moviegoers. South Korea, meanwhile, will see a name change because of the belief that many South Koreans don’t like the American military presence.

The report indicates that China most likely won’t distribute the film at all; the country allows roughly twenty non-Chinese movies per year, so Cap’s chances of appearing in China are slim to none. [Source].

This is old news, but I quite like the topic of changing film titles. Ha ha

[tw: sexist slur, ableism]

No, my problem is that the word “slut” has never felt like mine to reclaim. While women all over the world are waiting for people to stop seeing them as sex objects, women with disabilities are still waiting to be seen at all. We are less than a woman, somehow–certainly less than “slut.” Too often we are viewed as pitiable, pathetic and devoid of desire. We could never be “sluts.” If we are “lucky enough” to have partners, they get congratulations and pats on the back from strangers when they “take us out” in public. People applaud their generosity and selflessness for taking care of us, assuming they get nothing in return (certainly not sex or satisfying intimate connections). People imagine we are loved “in spite of” our disabilities rather than for all the other things we are. We struggle to find doctors who will monitor our pregnancies and help deliver our babies because it’s “dangerous” for us to be mothers.

Thoughts on Slutwalk from a Wheelchair.

(via ateacupinastorm)

Source: flutterflyinvasion

Ad Hominem.

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of “argument” has the following form:

  1. Person A makes claim X.
  2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
  3. Therefore A’s claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

(via thecherrytrees-deactivated20130)

Being PC in this day and age.

“Jeremy Clarkson, Ricky Gervais and Andy Gray have all paid the price for causing offence. But are their comments any different from the merciless banter heard on the street every day?”

A few comments:

Hierarchies of oppressions, competitive offence taking, competition for the moral authority of ‘victim status’, the bastardisation of the language of equal opportunities into nothing more than a form of class oppression, moral self-aggrandisement at other’s expense - the rank cesspit world of the privileged dinner-party liberal.

2011 was no different to 1978 … except in 1978 anyone offended by something would have had to put pen to paper to write a letter to an editor to air their opinion with the chances of their letter being picked for publication being close to zero.

There has to be boundaries in the media because it influences people etc.. Although many comedians work on shock humour, people need to realise for example saying ‘that’s so gay’ (turning the word gay into meaning something that’s bad) is offensive whether the person saying it means to be offensive or not. What I’m trying to say is… People can say what they like to be funny and to their mates but they have to be mature when they get people disliking them for it and respect that what they said could be deemed as wrong (especially if it is something personal to whoever has taken offense) Instead of making fun of their attempts to explain why they took offense, just apologise instead. Everyone has freewill to say what they like after all, apart from when they’re encouraging ignorance and acting above everyone else like the way ricky gervais blatantly was. To sum up - people should be able to use shock humour as long as they apologise to anyone who genuinely took offense and accept the consequences…

This is a topic of which I’ve still yet to form a ‘solid’ opinion on. I see both sides as potentially negative and positive currently. But am not sure where I truly am on the subject. I do believe in context over content (you have the right to be offended, but I see no point in being offended by things that are meant light-heartedly). At the same time, I encourage the caution of using certain terms due to their offensive associations. Particularly as I’ve been noticing the impact of people’s jokes over people’s behaviour or thoughts.

I didn’t think so before, but I’ve found that people actually start believing in their jokes (particularly if these are accepted jokes). It’s kind of disturbing sometimes. Quite a few criminals have apparently said that rape isn’t bad and everyone knows it because they make jokes about it and it’s fine to do so. But then, I wonder if paedophiles find that ‘cause, although many joke about them, they’re despised in reality with a disturbing passion.

There’s an opposite to deja vu. They call is jamais vu. It’s when you meet the same people or visit a place, again and again, but each time is the first. Everybody is always a stranger. Nothing is ever familiar.

— Chuck Palahniuk.

I’ve heard the term before to describe when you write something… and it doesn’t look right. For example, although I had written and said the phrase many times before, I wasn’t sure as to whether or not “rose-tinted spectacles” was a real term, or if that was how you even described what I was trying to say. I was almost convinced I was wrong and had made it up!

The phenomenon is often grouped with déjà vu and presque vu.

Chris Moulin, of Leeds University, asked 92 volunteers to write out “door” 30 times in 60 seconds. At the International Conference on Memory in Sydney, he reported that 68 percent of volunteers showed symptoms of jamais vu, such as beginning to doubt that “door” was a real word.

Dr Moulin believes that a similar brain fatigue underlies a phenomenon observed in some schizophrenia patients: that a familiar person has been replaced by an impostor*. Dr Moulin suggests they could be suffering from chronic jamais vu. [Source].

*Related to the Cotard delusion, this is the Capgras delusion.

(via isurfnaked-deactivated20120331)

Top