Things They Should Invent: stop tasing people as part of training

Often much is made of the fact that police officers and taser salespeople get tased as part of their training.

I think this is a shitty idea and they should stop it immediately.

Why? Because the person being tased might live.

Stick with me, I'm going somewhere with this.

Every once in a while people die from being tased, and we aren't sure exactly why. They don't know when they tase a person whether they'll die or not. So a taser isn't actually a safe stun gun, it isn't like setting your phaser to stun, it's a randomly lethal weapon. Believe me, if they were reliable never-lethal stun guns, I'd have one in my night table and one in my purse - whether they were legal or not!

If you've never been tased, you appreciate how they're randomly lethal, because you have no idea whether you'd survive a tasing or not (and what you'd experience while dying). But if you've been tased and then walked away with nothing more than a bit of a headache (or whatever), then you're more likely to think "Hey, it's no big deal! I've survived it myself!"

New Rule: stop staying "Googlegänger", start saying "Doppelgoogler"

It has come to my attention that people are using the word "Googlegänger" to mean another person who comes up when you google yourself.

Good, well-intentioned coinage, but unfortunately it's wrong.

Googlegänger is a blend of "Google" and the German "Dopplegänger", meaning an exact double of a person. "Dopplegänger" itself is a blend of "dopple" meaning double, and "gänger" meaning literally "goer".

So as you can see, whoever coined "Googlegänger" inadvertently chose the wrong part of Dopplegänger to retain. A more accurate word would be "Doppelgoogler".

As a special incentive program, I have been authorized to permit anyone who switches from Googlegänger" to "Doppelgoogler" to use an umlaut on the O of their choice for purely aesthetic reasons, even though it is lexically incorrect.

How to be funny

Anything can be funny, no matter how offensive. The trick is, it has to be funnier than it is offensive. You get positive points for funny, you get negative points for offensive. If your net result is >0, you're funny. In theory, you can say something that's -10^100 offensive, and it will work if and only if it's +(10^100)+1 funny. This is why Sarah Silverman tends to work for me.

The thing most people don't realize is the audience gets to delegate these points however they like. The comedian doesn't get any say in it (which is why people who insist that they're funny even when the audience doesn't agree come across as mad crazy assholic). If the audience finds it more offensive than it is funny, the comedian loses.

I had this big long explanation about how to calculate whether something is going to be offensive to the audience, but I just realized it comes down to one simple thing: if the audience identifies with the victim of the joke, and they feel like the comedian is a threat to them - like the comedian wants to hurt them and then laugh at them for it.

So if a comedian wants to tell a joke with an offensive element to it and wants to maximize the chances of the audience finding it funny, what they have to do is disarm themselves and/or empower the audience until they get to the point where even if they audience identifies with the victim, the comedian is so powerless ineffective that they couldn't actually hurt the victim. Again, I think this is why Sarah Silverman works - her character is such an ineffective person that she couldn't successfully act on her offensive impulses even if she tried. (I can't think of an example offhand, but I have seen comedians go too far with this, casting themselves as the victim in a that I can identify with, and leaving me uncomfortable because now I feel like the whole world wants to hurt me and laugh at me for it.)

As usual, Eddie Izzard is very good at this. In his Heimlich Manoeuvre bit, he takes a joke just up to the point where he's about to pose a threat to the audience, then promptly disarms himself, all in about 30 seconds.

The part I'm talking about starts at 2:00:



Watch from 2:00 to 2:22, then pause just after he says "Your hymen's been removed?... You need it removed?"

Now if this joke were being worked out for the first time, the obvious next step would be for him to thrust his groin or something. But that would ruin everything. The audience would be sitting there, imagining themselves choking to death in a restaurant, and suddenly someone comes up and starts trying to have sex with them. That's not fun at all!

Now press play and watch how Eddie gets himself out of this one.

First he mimes surgical equipment - pretend surgical equipment that doesn't exist in reality. So now whatever this idiot has in mind, at least he isn't going to try to stick his dick in you while you're choking to death. Then he says "I don't know how to remove a hymen." BOOM, threat eliminated. He doesn't even know to stick his dick in places, so he's no threat at all! In fact, since the audience does know how to remove a hymen, he's put us in the position of power. We can now feel slightly superior in any number of ways, ranging from "Good, let's keep it that way," to "Come on, we don't believe that for a minute," to "Why don't you come here and I'll show you?" That's got just about everyone in the audience covered.

The net effect isn't hugely funny, but it does end up with positive points because he was able to make his little "Heimlich manoeuvre sounds like hymen removal" joke while not making anyone in the audience feel like he wants to rape us while we're choking to death or would think it's funny if someone raped us while choking to death. And all because he's willing to swallow his ego enough to pretend for a moment that he doesn't know how to have sex.

Let's all stop being feminists

From last Saturday's Globe and Mail: Is Feminism Going Out of Style?

This article has inspired me: let's declare feminism obsolete! I have a much better idea anyway:

Every time you have an opinion that would normally fall under the category of feminism, pluralize it in a gender-inclusive way.

Instead of 10 million women use prescription contraception, 10 million Canadian families rely on prescription contraception (heterosexist, yes, but perhaps that's a safe bet since we're talking contraception?)

Instead of women in Prince Edward Island don't have access to abortion, the entire province of Prince Edward Island is without access to abortion!

Instead of the media is paying too much attention to Hilary Clinton's clothes and husband, the media is paying too much attention to presidential candidates' clothes and spouses instead of focusing on the real issue!

These aren't women's issues, thus declaring them irrelevant to half the population. These are major social issues that affect people everywhere!

Stupidest thing ever EVER!

So it seems some pathetic losers who need to get a life are going to picket Heath Ledger's funeral. Because apparently he once played a gay character in some movie or another.

Apart from how tasteless and idiotic that is, I have a serious question:

What, specifically, are they trying to accomplish?

I mean that literally. When you're picketing or protesting, you have a specific tangible goal. You want a better collective agreement or you want trans fats banned or you want war to stop. Usually if the right person signs a piece of paper that says the right thing, you've won.

But in this case, what is their goal? He can't UNplay a gay character. And even if he could, he's dead now so he can't do anything about it.

(Aside: when I hear about things like this, sometimes my first thought is that someone of the same sex should walk up to them and give them a big ol' snog. Which of course is completely inappropriate - everyone should have the right to go around in public and even protest stupid things in public without having unwanted snogging forced on them. Plus it disturbs me that I'm thinking in terms of using sexuality as a weapon. But I do wonder what the legal status would be if you gave them due warning: "If you keep gaybashing him, I will kiss you - with tongue! If you shut up now, I will not kiss you." And then they keep up with the gaybashing so you kiss them. Would that be any less assault than unwanted snogging with no warning?)

Did someone die?

From my normally eerily prescient iTunes:

Aerosmith's Full Circle
k.d. lang's cover of Leonard Cohen's Hallelujah
The Beatles' Let It Be

If someone died, I think I'm going to delete all my music and never listen to music again...

Religious theory

I have a bunch of long posts in mind, and I'm too lazy to type them all out. So instead here's my latest religious theory:

If the messiah is in fact going to be born of a virgin impregnated by the holy spirit as postulated in the bible, it has already happened.

Why? Because between 2000 years of missionaries and evangelism, and today's mass media capabilities, everyone's already heard the story. So here's how it would go down today:

Archangel Gabriel: "Do not be afraid, for I bring you glad tidings. You have been blessed among women!"
Virgin: "Oh no you don't! I heard what happened to the last girl you said that to!"

Cringe

The only thing worse than googling something and accidentally landing on one of my own translations is googling something and landing on a text that contains all the worst features of my translations, but I can't tell if it's something I did or if someone else just wrote it in English in a way that sounds like my translations.

Apartment etiquette question

There are two flyers on my neighbour's door, and they've been there for a couple of days. It kind of screams "I'm not home!" I have never, to my knowledge, met the people* who live there and have no idea whether or not they're home. The only people who will see the flyers on the door are people who live on or have business on this floor, unless someone is specifically skulking through the building casing the joint.

One flyer is advertising from the developer advertising another one of its developments, the other is information from management on how an ongoing problem is being addressed (sort of falls under "Good to know" but doesn't require action).

Should I take the flyers off? Should I recycle them? Should I attempt to slip them under the door (doesn't always work depending on how the door is) and risk being caught messing around on my neighbour's door?

*Interesting that I assume multiple people live there, even though it's a one-bedroom that I'd consider too small for a couple. I was talking to my newspaper carrier the other day, and he also assumed that two people live in my apartment. I did nothing to disavow him of the notion, if that is in fact the proper use of disavow. I'm too lazy to google it but apparently not too lazy to type out this whole sentence.

Scary

Dr. Morgentaler looks frighteningly like my father. Every time I see a picture of him, I get this massive wave of cognitive dissonance.

My kingdom for a time machine

It's one of those "Do the impossible at any price" situations at work, so it looks like I'll be incommunicado for the rest of the week.

If you're bored, look up Danny Bhoy on Youtube. He's far better than I expected.

Trusting strangers

This is a tangent to a larger post I've got festering in my brain, but I think it's turned into its own separate idea:

We all know that in general the prudent thing, for women especially, is to have a certain wariness of strange men (if you care to discuss this point, wait for my next post on the subject; for this post we're taking it as a given). I've heard a number of times of situations where the men involved take offence at this - like when a woman steps back from the curb as they pull up in their car, or waits for the next elevator, or namedrops her boyfriend, or turns up the chill as a precautionary measure, they take offence that she is apparently presuming they're rapists or they're only after one thing or whatever. I can't speak to the mindset behind this attitude or the actual trustworthiness of the people who feel this way, I've just heard from several discrete sources that it exists.

However, I'm the complete opposite in terms of my expectations. I'm always a wee bit surprised when people trust me. I start talking to a baby (my ovaries make me!) and its grownup is amused and sometimes even actively encourages the "conversation." A fellow resident whom I don't actually know holds the access-control door open for me instead of making me beep myself in. I'm short a quarter, the coffee shop lady spots me from the tip jar and says I can get it next time. The beepy security label is right on the back of the waistband of the pants - the part that's crucial to whether they gap or not - and the saleslady is all "Sure, no problem," when I ask her if she could possibly remove it.

Now, I am trustworthy. I'm not going to steal your baby or rob your apartment or shoplift your pants or cheat you out of your quarter. But people have no way of knowing that. I mean, they can probably tell by looking at me that I couldn't beat them up, but apart from that I'm still a complete stranger without any particular credentials. I know part of the reason why I'm surprised people trust me is because in childhood and adolescence they didn't because of my youth, so going into a store and not being treated like a shoplifter is somewhat novel. But mostly I'm surprised because they have no particular reason to trust me any more than anyone else.

I think it would be interesting to study this in broader society. Who are the people who expect to be trusted on the basis that they are in fact trustworthy? Who are the people who don't expect to be trusted on the basis that they are strangers? Which of these people are actually trustworthy? How much do they trust strangers? Does their empirical experience of being trusted or not affect what they expect from strangers?

Band name, free for the taking

I think Eisbär-Baby would make a good band name. In English, at least - it would probably sound ridiculous in German. (For those of you who don't read German, anything on that page with the word "Bild" in it is going to have adorable pictures.)

I wonder if there's a comedy kissing etiquette

I'm watching Whose Line, and I noticed that when people kiss - even if it's making out type kissing - they don't move their lips at all. They just press their mouths together and use their other body language to communicate that they're supposed to be making out. At first I thought it was just because the boys didn't want to kiss each other too enthusiastically, but it happens in boy-girl kisses too.

Now I know that in film and TV and theatre when characters are kissing, the actors kiss properly. But I haven't seen that much improv outside of Whose Line and I've never paid much attention to kissing in sketch comedy etc. I wonder if this is some general rule of stage etiquette in improve and/or sketch comedy, or if it's just exclusive to American Whose Line?

What I appreciate about Ugly Betty

One thing I really appreciate about Ugly Betty is that Betty has a sex life, and no one makes a big deal of the fact. Yes, some of the catty people at Mode have commented that they don't want that mental picture, but no one has ever said or implied "OMG, you get sex even though you're ugly?"

It was once mentioned that a certain night was Betty and Henry's first night together, but it was never implied that Betty was a virgin then, which means she's had at least one partner before. Yes, it was probably Walter, and yes, Walter is unappealing. But Henry is smart and kind and attractive and clearly loves and respects Betty. Yes, he is labelled as a dork and given ridiculous glasses, but he still is an appealing person. Plus he could get with Charlie (who is probably the prettiest non-plastic person on the show), but there is never even a hint of "You could have Charlie and you went for Betty????" or any mention that he's so good to be able to see beyond the superficial. It is simply presented as an unquestioned given that Betty has sex just like anyone else.

My adolescent self could really have benefited from seeing that - someone who looks like me and is presented as just as unattractive as I was (and who is/was bullied and belittled by the cool girls) gets to have sex with an appealing partner (and, at the age of 23, has had at least one other partner) and this isn't even unusual enough to be worth commenting on, overtly or tacitly.

Best sleepwalk ever?

Last night I went to bed wearing black socks.

This morning I woke up wearing white socks.

I was alone in the apartment all night and have no memory of dreaming or waking up.

Stupidest rule ever of the day

So they're making a rule that men who've had sex with another man in the past five years can't be organ donors.

Okay, so here's the thing: you've got a braindead corpse being kept alive by machines until you can figure out whether any of his organs can be used.

How do you know who he's had sex with and how he had sex with them and when he had sex with them?

The only possible way you can find out is to ask other people.

Now if his next of kin is his same-sex partner, you've got your answer right there. But if his next of kin is a family member, he may or may not be out to them, depending on family dynamics. And it's also less likely they'll know when and with whom he has had sex. Do you know when and with whom your immediate family members have had sex? Do they know this about you? You can probably hazard a guess, but most likely don't know for sure.

But if he has had sex with men but not out to his family, you're not going to be able to get correct information. If he has had sex with men and his next of kin is his wife, you'll probably get information that's patently wrong. If he's highly closeted, on the downlow or going to sex workers (or being a sex worker), not only are his survivors not going to know about his activities, but it's more likely that he's engaging in riskier activities.

Basically, the riskier the prospective donor's activities, the less likely it is that the transplant team will be able to get accurate information about them. So this rule isn't going to accomplish a damn thing.

What they should be doing instead is working on a way to test donated organs for HIV or whatever else, like how they test all the blood that's going into the blood bank.

Am I reading these numbers right?

Check out the chart at the bottom of this article. (I can't copy it here, the formatting won't hold.)

It looks like it's saying that 10,714,415 prescriptions for contraception were dispensed in Canada in the last year, 9,890,599 of which were for oral contraceptives.

Is that what it's saying? Because that is a shitload of contraception! Don't get me wrong, I love contraception, I'm just not sure if the numbers can work out.

The population of Canada is 33 million. So that means that nearly 1/3 of all Canadians are on some kind of contraception. But only women would be taking these prescriptions. So that means that 2/3 of all females are using contraception. But contraception is biologically unnecessary before adolescence and after the age of about fifty, not to mention women who are trying to conceive or pregnant or not sexually active or tubalized or using non-prescription contraception or whose partner is female or whose partner is vasectomized. Does this work out? Is there actually room in our population for 33 million for 10 million women who are in the market for contraception? Or am I missing something?

Eddie Izzard gets political

Eddie-baby (a.k.a. Frank) gets political, gets a standing O from George Clooney, confuses Angelina Jolie, and manages to incorporate the words "toilet" and "poo."



(Aside: is it just me, or do at least two of those documentaries sound like made-up comedy descriptions?)