Completely Inconsequential Hot-Takes

[Ionathus]

Do you have a rant you need to get off your chest? A rant about something small? Something so unimportant that you're flabbergasted it's still on your mind? Something that's so bafflingly non-polarizing that you yourself are shocked by your possession of an opinion on the subject?

Well, so do I. Welcome, friend.

Two rules:

1. You must share a hot-take. A rant. It's got to be a bold claim and you've got to feel strongly about it.
2. Your rant MUST be terminally unimportant. Like, Ryan Gosling's SNL Papyrus sketch levels of unimportant. Bonus points if nobody else can even understand why it upsets you.
3. No dissecting other people's rants. Helpful observations or discussion is encouraged, but please don't turn it into a full-on debate! Hopefully these things are already too inconsequential to be worth debating...Yes I am aware of how naïve that sounds on this forum :D

I'll go first.

Spoiler: RANT - Avatar: The Last Airbender

Show

Ozai: And how was it Great-Grandfather Sozin managed to win the battle of Han-Tui?
Young Zuko: Great-grandfather won...because...
Young Azula: Because even though his army was outnumbered, he cleverly calculated his advantages. The enemy was downwind and there was a drought. Their defenses burned to a crisp within minutes. *Extremely smug smirk*

Everyone in the room is a firebender. Literally the only distinguishing weapon they have is fire. "The enemy's defenses were flammable" is not a realization you have when you cleverly calculate your advantages: it's a realization you have when all you have is a hammer and the room is full of actual freaking nails.

Zuko struggling with the answer makes sense because he's shy and hesitant and intimidated by 3 of the 4 ppl in the room. But Azula sniping it and acting like she'd aced a hard question really gets under my skin. It's like being quizzed "how did the Blue soldier kill the Green soldier?" and being smug and satisfied when you deduce "the Blue soldier had the only gun and cleverly calculated that the Green soldier was not immune to bullets."

[tomandtish]

Spoiler: The Meg

Show

The research station. They have a theory that what people think is the bottom of the ocean is actually a layer of gas (methane IIRC). They want to see if this is correct, and then explore/exploit it (depending on whom you ask).

Now, logic would suggest that you take one of your deep-water submersibles, put it on a boat, go out to the site, and see if the theory is correct. Instead, they build a 1.2 billion dollar facility, and only then do they bother to see if the bottom is not actually the bottom. And they are very clear that if the theory is wrong then the money has been wasted.

Before someone says tax write-off, my understanding is that unless you’re being shady it only affects taxable income. So, losing 1.2 billion means you don’t have to pay taxes on that 1.2 billion. You’re still out the money. You can carry over a loss to the next year, but it still only affects how much tax you pay.

[animorte]

Spoiler: RANT - Avatar: The Last Airbender

Show

Everyone in the room is a firebender. Literally the only distinguishing weapon they have is fire. "The enemy's defenses were flammable" is not a realization you have when you cleverly calculate your advantages: it's a realization you have when all you have is a hammer and the room is full of actual freaking nails.

Zuko struggling with the answer makes sense because he's shy and hesitant and intimidated by 3 of the 4 ppl in the room. But Azula sniping it and acting like she'd aced a hard question really gets under my skin. It's like being quizzed "how did the Blue soldier kill the Green soldier?" and being smug and satisfied when you deduce "the Blue soldier had the only gun and cleverly calculated that the Green soldier was not immune to bullets."

You don’t get bonus points because I understand this faaar too well. But that bonus point is neutralized by the fact that it’s one of my favorite shows.

Also brilliant concept for a thread. I’ll provide my own input at a later time about what ridiculous thing really grinds my gears.

[Murk]

In the Dutch language there are two words for "brother in law".

One of these is a bit archaic, but both words are still valid words.

There are also two types of brother in law: the brother of your partner, and the partner of your sibling - two very different connections.

So we have two words, and two meanings.
And yet, both words have both meanings. The two words are synonyms and homonyms.

That's... it bothers me. When you have two words and two meanings, you might as well give one word one meaning, and the other word the other meaning. Right? That's efficient use of your words!

But I haven't ever managed to convince anyone that this is a pressing issue that needs to be solved.

[animorte]

I remember years ago taking French class in high school. It's such a romantic language, they say. It sounds so beautiful.

We start learning the alphabet and get to the letter R, which is apparently pronounced: "airchcgcjchgg"

Did I pronounce enough phlegm in that?

[Mystic Muse]

The existence of the phrases

'Needless to say"

"It goes without saying"

And other such things are just word vomit. If it were needless to say, or it went without saying, you would not add 3 or 4 additional words.

[Fyraltari]

The two words are synonyms and homonyms.

They mean the same thing and are written and pronounced the same? Are you sure they're two different words?

That's... it bothers me. When you have two words and two meanings, you might as well give one word one meaning, and the other word the other meaning. Right? That's efficient use of your words!

Efficiency is anathema to linguistics

I remember years ago taking French class in high school. It's such a romantic language, they say. It sounds so beautiful.

I think they meant "romance language". Italian is the romantic one.

We start learning the alphabet and get to the letter R, which is apparently pronounced: "airchcgcjchgg"

Did I pronounce enough phlegm in that?

No, it's pronounced "r".

[Peelee]

It's such a romantic language, they say. I

It is a romantic language! Romantic. Latin derivative. People love to say it's kissy kissy romantic but it's Latin romantic.

I think they meant "romance language". Italian is the romantic one.

You misspelled "German".

[animorte]

You misspelled "German".

I actually work at BMW and we take turns attempting to read the various German words, but we never seem to sound angry enough. So this comment was hilarious to me.

[Dame_Mechanus]

There is absolutely one article on the entire Transformers Wiki that actually bothers me, and it's this one.

The Predacon ship is not named over the entirety of Beast Wars. At no point during the show does a character state the ship's name. It's not entirely clear if it even has a name. But in one episode, Terrorsaur says, "Welcome to the dark side!" before shooting at Cheetor as he was trying to infiltrate the ship. This is very obviously not a place name but an observation that the ship has become the base of a group of antagonistic criminals, and indeed no one else over the entirety of the series calls it by any name. It's just... the Predacon ship.

Some people, being exceedingly literal and stupid, assumed that Terrorsaur must have been referring to the name of the ship. This is obviously wrong. But then some paratextual material made by fans-turned-pro, named it the Darksyde. On every other topic in the franchise, the wiki treats things like convention-exclusive stories and the like as interesting supplementary material that does not supercede existing information or the lack thereof. (To continue using Beast Wars as an example, the wiki does not treat a scene that was animated and intended to be included in the finale without actually being included as being part of continuity.)

But in this case? The page is named after a fan name based on a shockingly stupid misreading of a line that is clearly not meant to indicate a name for the location. It's a stupid misunderstanding and validating it was stupid! The ship just doesn't have a name! If the writers wanted to give it a name they had plenty of opportunities!

[Murk]

They mean the same thing and are written and pronounced the same? Are you sure they're two different words?

No, it's not one homonym, they're both homonyms. One word with two meanings, and then another word with two meanings, so two homonyms. Both sets of meanings are the same, so also synonyms. Two homonyms that are synonyms. I find it very stupid.
Surely there are other words for which this applies. Those would be stupid, too.

Efficiency is anathema to linguistics.

Exactly!

[Bohandas]

The director of the movie Ad Astra said "What I’m trying to do is the most realistic depiction of space travel that’s been put in a movie". I don't think he could have failed worse if he tried.

[Rynjin]

The existence of the phrases

'Needless to say"

"It goes without saying"

And other such things are just word vomit. If it were needless to say, or it went without saying, you would not add 3 or 4 additional words.

Those phrases actually serve a very useful purpose.

What they essentially mean is "You should know this already, but I know at least some of you dumb mother****ers weren't paying attention last time it came up, so I'm going to waste my time AND yours going over it again."

[Keltest]

No, it's not one homonym, they're both homonyms. One word with two meanings, and then another word with two meanings, so two homonyms. Both sets of meanings are the same, so also synonyms. Two homonyms that are synonyms. I find it very stupid.
Surely there are other words for which this applies. Those would be stupid, too.!

That just sounds like one word with two spellings then?

[Amidus Drexel]

That just sounds like one word with two spellings then?

Not necessarily - the two could very well have different origins and entirely different pronunciations - which you could (in theory) argue are still the same "word", but I wouldn't.

I don't think we're looking at something like the difference between the words 'colour" and 'color', but instead like the difference between the words 'vermilion' and 'crimson' (let's pretend for the sake of argument that vermilion and crimson aren't referring to specific dye ingredients, and just talk about the resulting colors).

[Peelee]

That just sounds like one word with two spellings then?

Imean, that's kind of like saying "help" and "assist" are one word with two spellings.

[Keltest]

Imean, that's kind of like saying "help" and "assist" are one word with two spellings.

They've been described as homonyms, IE having the same pronunciation. The explanation has been more than a little roundabout, but as best I can tell, theyre basically the same word already.

[Peelee]

They've been described as homonyms, IE having the same pronunciation. The explanation has been more than a little roundabout, but as best I can tell, theyre basically the same word already.

And I've taken from context that "homonym" is likely being used incorrectly due to the fact that homonyms are also spelled the same, which we know is not the case here.

[Metastachydium]

No, it's pronounced "r".

It's not pronounced /r/, however. (You can't fight IP^hA!)

No, it's not one homonym, they're both homonyms. One word with two meanings, and then another word with two meanings, so two homonyms. Both sets of meanings are the same, so also synonyms. Two homonyms that are synonyms. I find it very stupid.
Surely there are other words for which this applies. Those would be stupid, too.

The word you're looking for is polysemy (rather than homonymy).

[Fyraltari]

It's not pronounced /r/, however. (You can't fight IP^hA!)

Depends on the accent.

[Metastachydium]

Depends on the accent.

No, no, no, accent goes on vowels, not consonants!

[Peelee]

No, no, no, accent goes on vowels, not consonants!

The loudest band in England disagrees. And they go to 11.

[Fyraltari]

No, no, no, accent goes on vowels, not consonants!

Touché.890

[Hagashager]

I harbor a deep and intense hatred for the Blade Runner theory that Decker is a replicant. The twist utterly undermines the point of the film and the source material of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep

Seriously, the point is humans have a precious gift. Replicants get 4 good years and they die. Humanity takes our 70+ years for granted and get intimidated when a far less lively creation calls us out on it. Decker is a bridge between humans and replicants. He's a human capable of love for a replicant and willing to give replicants a fleeting chance at life.

Take that away and you're left with a bog-standard Robots rip-off.

The fact that people take Decker being a replicant so persionally also irks me.

[Mx.Silver]

I harbor a deep and intense hatred for the Blade Runner theory that Decker is a replicant. The twist utterly undermines the point of the film and the source material of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep

Seriously, the point is humans have a precious gift. Replicants get 4 good years and they die. Humanity takes our 70+ years for granted and get intimidated when a far less lively creation calls us out on it. Decker is a bridge between humans and replicants. He's a human capable of love for a replicant and willing to give replicants a fleeting chance at life.

Take that away and you're left with a bog-standard Robots rip-off.

The fact that people take Decker being a replicant so persionally also irks me.

Depends on the reading, really. Decker being a replicant reinforces the underlying point that the replicants are not, in fact, less 'human' than the humans in any meaningful way (worth noting that during the film's planning stages, the idea that basically every named character in the film was actually a replicent, up-to and including Tyrell himself). It also adds a little nod to the overal 'social' themes of the film, since under it Decker is also, literally, a creation of the film's society in the same way the replicants, even if his (apparent) longer lifespan affords him a privilege Roy's crew and (presumably) Rachel are denied. So if you're looking at Blade Runner through that kind of lens, then Decker being a replicant makes a lot of sense, reinforcing the film's themes rather than undermining them.

This does run contrary to the conceit of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, but then so does all of Blade Runner's depictation of the replicants in the first place. In the book, the androids are inhumanly sociopathic, even if they're not actively malevolent, and you're eventually left with the idea that they're a symptom of an increasingly dehumanised, artificial society, rather than the victims of one.

[Hagashager]

Depends on the reading, really. Decker being a replicant reinforces the underlying point that the replicants are not, in fact, less 'human' than the humans in any meaningful way (worth noting that during the film's planning stages, the idea that basically every named character in the film was actually a replicent, up-to and including Tyrell himself). It also adds a little nod to the overal 'social' themes of the film, since under it Decker is also, literally, a creation of the film's society in the same way the replicants, even if his (apparent) longer lifespan affords him a privilege Roy's crew and (presumably) Rachel are denied. So if you're looking at Blade Runner through that kind of lens, then Decker being a replicant makes a lot of sense, reinforcing the film's themes rather than undermining them.

This does run contrary to the conceit of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, but then so does all of Blade Runner's depictation of the replicants in the first place. In the book, the androids are inhumanly sociopathic, even if they're not actively malevolent, and you're eventually left with the idea that they're a symptom of an increasingly dehumanised, artificial society, rather than the victims of one.

Now see that' a thoughtful take. Most of the conversations I've had all revolved around Decker being a Replicant because it furthers some narrative that humanity is irreedemably evil, or in one particularly shallow case "because it's a good twist."

I can understand the whole Replicant syatem being a creation of the Replicants themselves as a commentary on humanity and what makes us human, the mind or the guts?

[Bohandas]

It is a romantic language! Romantic. Latin derivative. People love to say it's kissy kissy romantic but it's Latin romantic.

Why did people feel the need to add a suffix to turn it into an adjective when it was already an adjective

[gomipile]

Why did people feel the need to add a suffix to turn it into an adjective when it was already an adjective

Well, Roman would imply "still part of everything Roman." That would seem like too restrictive of a category for the languages, or too expensive of a category for "everything Roman." So, I can understand the desire for a suffix to imply a looser relationship.

And I suppose Romantic sounds better than Roman-ish. And it's easier to write and say than Roman-derived or Latin-derived.

[Peelee]

And I suppose Romantic sounds better than Roman-ish.

Romanesque?

[Fyraltari]

Why did people feel the need to add a suffix to turn it into an adjective when it was already an adjective

I think the correct term is romance language.