Really? To name daughters after mothers? I honestly never see that personally. It's always dudes doing this naming thing.(Note my use of gender-neutral words here- this seems to be an increasingly popular trend for women and their daughters.)
Really? To name daughters after mothers? I honestly never see that personally. It's always dudes doing this naming thing.(Note my use of gender-neutral words here- this seems to be an increasingly popular trend for women and their daughters.)
As someone named after his father (of whom I'm quite proud,) it's not about a legacy. It's about pride, like an artist signing his/her work. Other than that, a name is a name is a name; there's nothing objectively offensive about naming your child after yourself. Would you assign your name to something you're not proud of and don't wish greatness for?I consider naming your child after you to be a form of child abuse. You're chaining the kid to your legacy instead of letting them create their own. If you want everyone to know who your kid's parents are, be a good enough parent so that your kid will be proud to tell everyone.
(Note my use of gender-neutral words here- this seems to be an increasingly popular trend for women and their daughters.)
Your child isn't a piece of art, a product of yours to display to others. I wouldn't assign my name to another living being period, and thus tie them to an expectation they might not be able to, or want to live up to. I had a very demanding dad, who expected things of me that I had zero desire to do. And my choice was to either suppress my own desires and goals to appease him, or openly defy his dreams of me, and deal with the backlash from it.As someone named after his father (of whom I'm quite proud,) it's not about a legacy. It's about pride, like an artist signing his/her work. Other than that, a name is a name is a name; there's nothing objectively offensive about naming your child after yourself. Would you assign your name to something you're not proud of and don't wish greatness for?
Sure, if you want to overdramatize it. Not everyone has had the same experience you've had; that doesn't make naming children after yourself a bad idea in everyone's case. I never felt the need to "live up" to any expectations for carrying my father's name, and he never expected me to; he was simply proud to have his one and only son. Besides, 99% of people I meet won't even know I'm named after my father unless I tell them, and even then I mostly don't simply because it's irrelevant. It's not even a interesting fact and certainly not a topic of conversation; it's not like I'm the heir to a throne or anything.Your child isn't a piece of art, a product of yours to display to others. I wouldn't assign my name to another living being period, and thus tie them to an expectation they might not be able to, or want to live up to. I had a very demanding dad, who expected things of me that I had zero desire to do. And my choice was to either suppress my own desires and goals to appease him, or openly defy his dreams of me, and deal with the backlash from it.
I think it's really the context in which those common words/phrases are used and the person delivering them; I wouldn't say either is objectively positive or negative.I hate the way people use the term "open-minded" as a positive trait, when they really mean "gullible as fuck, and lacking any and all critical thinking skills" since it always comes up when they talk about how they believe some ridiculous woo bullshit.
I hate the way people use the term "skeptic/skeptical" as a negative trait, when the times it gets used, it when people are displaying reasonable doubt about shady/stupid shit presented to them without any evidence.
Except that's not how it's often used. People often deploy that word when they are trying to defend a stupid belief, in spite of evidence to the contrary. They're the Mulder's of the world, ready to instantly believe anything at the drop of a hat, often using the defense "well you can't prove it's not real" despite proving a negative isn't how shit works.I think it's really the context in which those common words/phrases are used and the person delivering them; I wouldn't say either is objectively positive or negative.
Well, open-minded is generally regarded as positive, but when someone playing Russian Roulette claims they're "just being open-minded to a new experience," clearly that person is an idiot. But less cynically, an open-minded person is just someone whose beliefs don't need to be congruent with those of others around them. I have gay friends. I'm not gay, but their lifestyle doesn't bother me; I don't feel the need to badger them into conformity with what reproductive science would tell us are "natural" relationships.
Except that's not what actual skeptics are. That's how the other side paints them all the time. You've literally described those who don't practice skepticism, not the other way around. Since you brought up flat earthers, they are not skeptical about the shape of the earth, because they've been presented with evidence that refutes their entire claim, on multiple levels, from multiple sources, and they still refuse to actually apply critical thinking, and accept that they are wrong about something. That's not skepticism, that's dogmatic stubbornness.Skeptic/skeptical I think carry a negative connotation because they often denote someone who believes themselves above a belief, somewhat haughty, believes in their absolute correctness unless proven otherwise when it really just means someone is [ironically] open-minded to other possibilities, even if those are unpopular possibilities. Those people need not be just "displaying reasonable doubt about shady/stupid shit presented to them without any evidence." Flat-earthers are skeptical about the shape of the planet; I'm skeptical it's going to snow tomorrow in north Texas; same adjective, but one is reasonable, the other is not.
We have a very different culture regarding wearing shoes at home over here, so I have to ask, why were you wearing loafers at home?I fell down the fucking stairs because of my stupid goddamn loafers. They have this particular slick sole that is seemingly super risky when they meet the carpeting on my stairs. I knew this was a thing for a long while, that putting my foot down at just the wrong angle would make me slip, but I always managed not to do so, and the rare occasion when I did I was quick to grab on to the railing. Until yesterday.
So I'm buying new loafers. Also my freaking arms hurt now.
I was simply pointing out that semantically, those words/phrases aren't objectively positive or negative depending on who uses them and how the use them. I took your post to mean you felt there's never a case when they could be used counterintuitively to their generally expected connotations.Except that's not how it's often used. People often deploy that word when they are trying to defend a stupid belief, in spite of evidence to the contrary. They're the Mulder's of the world, ready to instantly believe anything at the drop of a hat, often using the defense "well you can't prove it's not real" despite proving a negative isn't how shit works.
Except that's not what actual skeptics are. That's how the other side paints them all the time. You've literally described those who don't practice skepticism, not the other way around. Since you brought up flat earthers, they are not skeptical about the shape of the earth, because they've been presented with evidence that refutes their entire claim, on multiple levels, from multiple sources, and they still refuse to actually apply critical thinking, and accept that they are wrong about something. That's not skepticism, that's dogmatic stubbornness.
Being skeptical of a known thing, like snow, is VASTLY different from the shape of the freaking planet. Or ghosts, or UFOs, or any of a myriad of things that we have basically zero credible evidence for, beyond anecdotal statements, and yet if someone questions someone's belief about something that has no basis in fact, they criticize you for being "oh you're just such a skeptic!"
I hate WHEN people use the term "open-minded" as a positive trait, when appealing to someone being idiotic.
I hate WHEN people use the term "skeptic/skeptical" as a negative trait, when referring to someone being rational.
I'm assuming he was heading out. Culturally, we don't typically wear loafers just around the house. Hell, these pandemic days, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone wearing PANTS around the house!We have a very different culture regarding wearing shoes at home over here, so I have to ask, why were you wearing loafers at home?
It's a translation hiccup. They're actually slippers, but in my native language 'slippers' are flip flops, so I tend to default to calling them loafers in english.We have a very different culture regarding wearing shoes at home over here, so I have to ask, why were you wearing loafers at home?
What about Vegeta Jr. and Vegeta Jr. Jr.? How would that work out?People who give their kids the middle name Junior, instead of the suffix Jr.
My family sort of skip it a generation. My brother and I have middle names that both come from our grandfather. And my daughters got their middle names from my grandmother and my wife's mother.As someone named after his father (of whom I'm quite proud,) it's not about a legacy. It's about pride, like an artist signing his/her work. Other than that, a name is a name is a name; there's nothing objectively offensive about naming your child after yourself. Would you assign your name to something you're not proud of and don't wish greatness for?
I can think of perfectly good reasons to wear shoes in your home. For example, to stop your feet getting cold if you don't wanna run your heating all the time.We have a very different culture regarding wearing shoes at home over here, so I have to ask, why were you wearing loafers at home?
That's why you bookmark them or put them in the favorites! If possible!When I'm trying to find a specific fucking remix version of an EDM song, but none of the variants that come up on YT are the one I want