I think of Rachel Dolezal in two contexts: one, that she is insanely cute, and two, that she forces a discussion on an issue society still can’t deal with. The conversation is just turning to transgendered people, and she wanted to push it into a realm literally unheard of: that of trans-racial people. (Note that a professor at George Washington University recently “came out” and admitted to the same thing — and avoided all of that backlash by declaring herself a terrible person, etc etc.) But I support Rachel. I don’t even know if she’s got her own back on this issue anymore. But I see that she has the right to define herself. Not to lie, of course, and expect anything good to happen. But the underlying issue shouldn’t be an issue at all.
The fact that this is another form of trans means that the logic of the TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) would probably work here, as well. Certainly the idea of being trans-racial raised a million red flags, and received universal condemnation. But this same attitude, when applied by the TERFs to transgendered people raises its own million red flags, and receives almost as much criticism. JK Rowling has picked this very hill to die on, and her brand is now more toxic than Drano’s. Where is the line when it comes to appropriation? Is there one? Why is it appropriating to be black on the inside, and yet not when trans-gendered? Is there a line at all? Should there be? I don’t think there should.
Going with our gut is one of the most important skills we can learn in life. But specifically in terms of learning to listen to one’s intuition. A visceral reaction is not that. It’s a reflection of how far a person has yet to progress.
The more we all make a point of sleeping in, the more personal space that gives everyone else who’s awake. It’s unworkable, of course. No one works together on important things, but technically all you’d need do to help cool the world down emotionally is encourage everyone to stay asleep longer than they normally do.
Named as such because I have a perfect right to give my own theory — which is actually not a theory — the silliest name I can think of. So … named as such for the armadillo at the beginning of Tod Browning’s 1931 version of Dracula, with Bela Lugosi. And because I attached the wrong name to it. I’ve consistently conflated those two all of my life, because I only remember them as being at the beginning of the dictionary. (Also, because there’s a third word — “ant-eater” — also sitting near the front of the book.)
My method is, you can sum up a situation with something much better than a pro’s and con’s. Consider each variable/factor and number it between -3 and +3. Zero is neither good nor bad, as you’d expect, etc. Then you add it up. That’s it.
For example. I once wanted to ask this one woman out. Here’s that dilemma examined according to the Dracula Had An Aardvark Theory.
- Successful risk builds character [+2]
- A negative outcome would be humiliating [-2]
- The hope of dating [+1]
- Recklessness spurred by attraction [+2]
- A history of social anxiety and awkwardness [-2]
- The likelihood of the outcome [-2]
- Asking out a woman in her workplace [-3]
So that’s -4. They’re just relative gradations, but man, negative four is way inadvisable. Doing a pro’s and con’s would yield four negatives and three positives, which would add up to a -1. Still the same advice, but not as clear-cut.
As an outdoor public space, with walkways and places to sit, so that visitors could watch bands recording their songs live in the studio, through sound-proofed windows, with the music coming through speakers. The bands would play to an audience, but not exactly be in a live setting. No crowd noise, and they can stop and start as the session requires. But that dull feeling that settles over studio recordings would be gone.
How do I remember that the HTML named entity for an ellipsis is
… and not
&ellip;? Because if it were ellip, for ellipsis, I wouldn’t be wondering in the first place about whether or not there’s an “h” in there. (It’s a horizontal ellipsis.) (There’s also a vertical ellipsis numbered entity.) Though the exact definition of the Binary Borgnine Horizon Theory is as hazy as its silly name (which I am at full liberty to come up with) it’s basically that you should look for ways to reduce in two steps — first to a binary, then between the two. That there’s a good number of these easy-level Sudoku puzzles sitting around in life.
Argentina and Venezuela are another example. How do I remember that Venezuela is at the top of South America and Argentina is at the bottom of South America? I happen to have noticed once, in elementary school, that they started with letters at opposite ends of the alphabet. Only I found it a shame that the letters were switched around in order, because I needed to remember it as A to V. Top to bottom — the Western text direction other than left-to-right. Then I realized that, because I happen to know that they’re switched around, it can only be the one way. In other words, because I already knew about that first letter thing, I had a binary. Understanding that there was an extra step involved meant that it couldn’t be the original way. It filled in two more countries in my image of South America, and I could avoid learning by rote.
The Borgnine Horizon, by the way, is the point beyond which all is Ernest Borgnine. There’s no actual idea attached to that.