Educating Annoying Ignorances

[Jaeke]

In guitar class my teacher said:

"Its a damn shame they don't play classics anymore on the raido. I used to design pieces for movies and other media and all they want is all the techno and dubstep stuff."

ME-"Damn right. Man i wish people knew their stuff, i don't understand people anymore. They need to play the good stuff."

Teacher-"I know, the good stuff, like Blink 182, Greenday, the classics..."

Me-/quadruple facepalm followed by smashed guitar.

 

[Connor Lonske]

Not tech related, but people who think pansexuality is the same as bisexuality(it's not), or those who haven't heard of pansexuality and are like "what" or "that's stupid" or even "you're going to hell for you sexuality, why don't you change??".

And some of these people I've even seen here on the Escapist. It's insane.

That's because most people use the word "bisexuality" to mean "anyone who's not restricted to one gender sexually," while pansexuals don't.

I'm not going to correct you on the assumption you don't agree with what you said.

I personally use the word "bisexuality" about all sexualities that include both men and women, since that's what Wikipedia told me and that's what people and dictionaries generally agree the word means. I see pansexuality as a particular kid of bisexuality, but I'll gladly hear your definition of the words.

I think the definition of bisexuals accepting anyone is much much much too broad for a common sexuality. Now, while polysexual and pansexual were said had words later than when bisexuality had one, I think if continuing to use bisexual to describe people as gender indifferent isn't going to work.

Now I personally see bipolor disorder as a person who is attracted to both primary genders and sexes(and the person of their sex is of their same gender).

I see polysexuals as people who are ether attracted to one sex but multiple gender identities, or is attracted to both sexes but not all gender identities.

Now me being a pansexual, I see it as not limiting yourself to any gender identity or physical sex.

Now if both polysexuals and pansexuals were classified as bisexual, that would lead to a lot of confusion with in the LGBT community and more issues with ignorant, unaware, or discriminant people for these issues.

Also, linguistically, this makes a lot more sense then putting it all under bisexual.

This is because bi generally as a prefix means two [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bi-]. For example, bipolor disorder is called that because it primarly revolves around two different types of mood that swing into each other, i.e. depressive and manic(I have this disorder, so I would know)

Now, the prefix poly means many, [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/poly-], now this isn't the best prefix for it, but speaking from the assumption a person is attracted to more than one gender identity and at least one gender, then it suits it's purpose.

Lastly, pan means all [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pan-], which I think is reinvent to the meaning of the word, and the sexual identity itself, seeing how a pansexual wouldn't ever shun someone they are mentally attracted too because of their gender identity combined with whatever physical sex they may have.

Anyways, my final point is that if I were a bisexual, and some guy told me I liked traps even though I don't, then I would be pretty annoyed, personally.

 

[Thaliur]

And let's not forget that the only really established meaning of the word manga is "comics." Not "big-eyed comics," or "comics read right-to-left," just "comics." So when I get into an argument about that kind of thing, I tell people that. And add "So when I say that the word "manga" can be used about this comic, I've got over one hundred million Japanese people who agree with me. You think you know this stuff better than the entire population of Japan?"

On the other hand, there are people who throw a fit if you call something an "AMV" ("animated music video", as far as I know) when it's made up of western cartoon scenes.

 

[ExileNZ]

Carrying on with the iPod name theme.
A lot of computer novices call the actual computer itself the "hard drive".
I always do an 'internal' facepalm in my mind whenever I hear someone use this term incorrectly like this.

Spoiler: Also, I thought this was a hamper . . .

Um, yes to this. The hamper thing, particularly.

Guess I should throw in my 2c here.

People's assumptions that :

a) holding a firearms license means you're some kind of gun-nut, instead of someone the police have tested and deemed safe

b) The whole "cartoons are for kids" attitude to animation (not since 1993, mate) and in the same fashion, the "comics are for kids" attitude (why do people assume that because something is drawn instead of written it's instantly for kids?)

c) Assuming that because I speak English I AM English, or that I somehow give a shit about England and its interests. The only reason I give half a rats about England right now is becaues I'm in Europe and it's kinda close by.

 

[ExileNZ]

And let's not forget that the only really established meaning of the word manga is "comics." Not "big-eyed comics," or "comics read right-to-left," just "comics." So when I get into an argument about that kind of thing, I tell people that. And add "So when I say that the word "manga" can be used about this comic, I've got over one hundred million Japanese people who agree with me. You think you know this stuff better than the entire population of Japan?"

On the other hand, there are people who throw a fit if you call something an "AMV" ("animated music video", as far as I know) when it's made up of western cartoon scenes.

Fair's fair, AMVs were "anime music videos" first - I'd never even heard the term with "animated" before I read your post but I'm presuming that's the current compromise.
Not that AMVs with western series weren't around beforehand, they just didn't go by that name.

 

[Shadrouge]

1.
One of my biggest irks isn't so much an ignorance as a carelessness I think.

It really bothers me when people seem to write "can" when they meant to write "can't". This happens mostly in rushed text, such as instant messaging or video games, but sometimes forums, but I've seen it happen often enough that it became noticeable as somehow more than an occasional typo.

The only way I can imagine it coming about is they go to write their sentence one way, but then decide to change it to a negative way of saying the same thing, but forget to change all the words (like sometimes happens when changing between passive/active tenses, or past/present/future). But "can" and "can't" are huge differences when telling someone something and too many times have friends told me the exact opposite of what I should have been told.



2.
I don't know much of anything about cars, but I wish I did. I know nothing about makes and models or companies because I never had a passion for it. I'd like to know so I could be of use when identifying a vehicle at a crime scene or anything, I just can't get the knack for it. Learning how to fix a car would be useful also.



3.
I don't like hearing "Kleenex," but that's because where I live we don't use that at all, we all call any brand "Tissues". As in it's the norm to ask someone for a tissue, not a Kleenex. The reason it bugs me is because it offsets me when watching an American TV show, (Similar to "Gas" instead of "Petrol", though that doesn't bother me as much as they're more different).

I think it's because I already associate "Kleenex" with a different but similar sounding brand of cleaning wipes. As in the kind that are sort of like tissues but are soggy with a cleaning agent right out of the box, and so are strictly for cleaning small messes on the go, and wouldn't function well as a dry tissue at all.

Lastly, pan means all [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pan-]

A bit off topic but I think this is what the joke was about earlier. About being open to/"greedy for" everyone without the more common limitations.

 

[Hylke Langhout]

I've mentioned this another thread, but I'll say it again. Holland is not a country. Holland is a province in the country named "The Netherlands". Furthermore, Dutch people aren't all stoners who wear clogs. We don't all speak German, it is a different language.

Also, psychology does not teach you how to read people's minds, history is not useless as a subject of study and math is an (unfortunately) important subject in the future so pay the fuck attention in class.

 

[Queen Michael]

And let's not forget that the only really established meaning of the word manga is "comics." Not "big-eyed comics," or "comics read right-to-left," just "comics." So when I get into an argument about that kind of thing, I tell people that. And add "So when I say that the word "manga" can be used about this comic, I've got over one hundred million Japanese people who agree with me. You think you know this stuff better than the entire population of Japan?"

On the other hand, there are people who throw a fit if you call something an "AMV" ("animated music video", as far as I know) when it's made up of western cartoon scenes.

I think AMV is supposed to mean "Anime Music Video," though I can't remember where I heard that.

 

[Queen Michael]

I've mentioned this another thread, but I'll say it again. Holland is not a country. Holland is a province in the country named "The Netherlands". Furthermore, Dutch people aren't all stoners who wear clogs. We don't all speak German, it is a different language.

Also, psychology does not teach you how to read people's minds, history is not useless as a subject of study and math is an (unfortunately) important subject in the future so pay the fuck attention in class.

I've been to Holland more times than I can count, and this is all true. But I remember hearing the word "Holland" used about the country in a football song or something, so I gotta ask: Do Dutch people ever use that word to mean the entire nation?

 

[Knife]

Here's one that I've been seeing in recent threads here. On every single one of the recent "Was This Shooting Justified" threads someone exclaims that they should have shot the dangerous criminal in the knee. This bothers me so much. So, let's go over this.

Honestly I don't know where you dug up that load of bull, but lets go over this.

#1. Shooting a person in the leg is not easy. The leg is much smaller than the torso and likely moving. Even trained marksmen don't go for the leg shot. No one shots for the leg. You can easily miss the leg and bullets don't stop. They keep going and could hurt someone else. Even if you did hit the leg, nothing says the bullet would stay in the leg. While the torso is larger, easier to hit, and more likely to stop a bullet.

As an ex-soldier who happens to be a marksman I can hit a fist sized object from 50 meters away or a torso sized object from 300 meters away easy. Or twice smaller objects if they're immobile. That is given the right rifle and optics anyway. In either case shooting a person in the leg even with standard guns or rifles for anyone who passed shooting practise should be no problem - and if they can't, they have no business being a soldier/cop to begin with.
You're supposed to take a clear shot - that is to say there shouldn't be civilians near the target, which is usually the case. If there are innocent people nearby then there is always a possibility to hit them by accident so there's no difference which bodypart you shoot - standard bullets don't usually stay in the body (there are "unbalanced" bullets that do just that and scramble some vital organs while they travel all over the torso but those are outlawed).

#2. Shooting a person in the leg is just as likely to kill them as shooting them in the torso. The Femoral artery is a very large artery in your leg. So much as nicking that will cause a person to bleed out in a few minutes. If the bullet hits the bone, it could shatter and send shrapnel throughout the leg. Seriously, shooting a person in the leg is potentially just as deadly.

Now I'm no medic, but from what little I know of first aid external bleeding can usually be stopped pretty quickly and efficiently and people can survive amputated limbs, no such luck with torso injuries. While a leg injury could potentially be deadly so could the common cold, just because something is as possible doesn't mean it is as likely.

#3. Just because you shot a person in the leg, that doesn't mean it will stop them. Especially if they have a gun.

You seem to be contradicting #2 - it might kill them but not stop them? What are they, zombies? As you mentioned, real life isn't like the movies - a person shot in the leg will damn well feel it and will be less likely to make a good shot back. People don't usually just shrug off bullets like they were mosquitoes.

#4. Anyone who fires a gun accepts that they are shooting to kill. Especially trained people like police officers. There's a reason the police don't shoot running suspects. They always shoot to kill. Not to wound. Not to stop. Not to slow. To kill. So, if you're shooting to kill, you might as well shoot them in the easier to hit area anyway.

Again completely wrong, trained people shoot to neutralize (and no it isn't a euphemism for kill as movies would have you believe), you shoot in order to eliminate the threat, be it by scaring, immobilising or killing. Yes, you could kill. No, that is not the goal. Police and soldiers don't shoot running targets (with rare exceptions) because they are no longer a threat, as such there is nothing to neutralize. Someone without a weapon is not considered a threat, someone with no intention of harming you or people you are protecting is not considered a threat, someone who has no way to exercise their harmful intentions and using their weapon is not considered a threat. A running target falls under category number 2 (no intentions). A man who is in no condition to use his gun because his leg's been shot (he could be fine, he could be a mess - on a case by case basis) could be considered to be neutralized (under category number 3, no way).

Oh, and before some brings up warning shots, one of the first things I mentioned was the potential to hurt other people by accident. So why would you willingly fire away from the dangerous subject and potentially hurt someone else?

At least you got something right, warning shots have been found to be mostly ineffective and dangerous.

 

[Strazdas]

I feel your pain with ipods. the hours i spent teling people that my Zen Mosaic is NOT an ipod....

on the other note, i hate when people dont understand basic cncept of economics, then blame the government for their decisions when they are saving their butts.

 

[DoomyMcDoom]

I find people who think that because I work at a gas station, I must be retarded or something, look I couldn't find any kitchen work and i gotta pay my bills somehow .

Or the people who judge me because I shave my head and rock a goatee, I'm not a gang member, I don't deal drugs, I'm not a biker, I mean I am a total badass, but only because I AM ME, I don't associate with the criminal element, I find it irritating how many times police have hassled me based on how I look, I'm not a suspicious character, I'm not out to rob anyone's house, I'm walking to work early in the AM cuz I hafta open, and I don't drive to work and waste gas if I can walk there in 20 mins, also I like the little bit of excercise and fresh air prior to being trapped behind a till serving customers for 8 hours.

Also find it irritating when people think that just because I know how to build and fix computers, that I suddenly know exactly what the problems they're having with them are and how to troubleshoot them over the phone when I'm not even within range of a computer, so I have no reference material, and can't pull up stuff about similiar problems if I'm not familiar with them.

Or that because I know how older cars work, and restore vintage cars as a hobby that I can tell them what's wrong with their 1998 model vehicle, or with even newer models, I don't have the tools or knowhow to fix any car that runs with a fuel injection system or a computer, I fix cars that have less computer components than your average wristwatch. I can fix old cars because I can diagnose them, computers tend to fuck things up without any mechanical signs whatsoever, I may be able to diagnose something but if my diagnosis is "your car is running too rich" I can't recalibrate your fuel injection system for you, I don't have the tools for that, I have wrenches and hammers(and other basic mechanical tools), if those aren't going to fix it, I can't help you.

Also kinda annoys me when I see people using a bread knife to carve a chicken/turkey, this is probably not that much of an annoyance to most people but I have a certain level of cullinary knowledge, which includes the knowledge of what knives to use for what kind of cooking, and a bread knife just ends up mangling the hell outa the chicken and you get a messy looking slice, use one of the other knives, so many smooth blades sharp good knives to do that with, or even a serated carving knife, but a bread knife... *shudder*

anyway wall of text over!

 

[Major_Tom]

Those stupid "Top 100 unexplained or whatever" lists annoy me to no end. Containing such jaw dropping questions like "Why do kamikaze pilots wear helmets?" or "Why do they execute criminals with sterile needles?". Ugh. Also old wives' tales. No, mother, I'm not going to die if I go out with wet hair.

 

[BonGookKumBop]

What ignorance drives me crazy? "Carbon"

Ignorant people around the world are trained to run in fear every time they hear about "carbon emissions." I'm tired of hearing, "everyone knows carbon is destroying the planet." To illustrate, I give you an actual anecdote of cringe worthy carbon ignorance.

Once, a friend of mine noticed that my wife had left a Mother Jones magazine on our coffee table. His interest was peaked since he was a political science major, so he began to leaf through it. One of the articles was about the perception of the US in other countries and one of the points of the article was that the US pollutes more than it should. My friend looked up and said, "we should outlaw all carbon." For my friend's sake, I quickly changed the subject, but I have have often wondered about the fact that our centers of higher learning have entire curricula devoted to training young adults for public and political careers and this is what they're turning out? Are these people really going to try to lead us with this level of ignorance?

Now, if you don't understand why this drives me crazy, let me explain. All life on Earth is carbon based. Carbon is an element on the periodic table of elements. You can not create or destroy carbon; the amount of carbon on this planet is set and it can not increase or decrease due to the things we do in our daily lives.

Sure this is only semantics, but even if he had used the proper term and said, "we should outlaw all carbon dioxide," he still would have grated at my nerves. You see, all living things produce carbon dioxide when they use energy, even trees, they just store more energy than they use, so they consume more carbon dioxide than they produce.

Even if we allowed normal life functions and banned all other sources of carbon dioxide, we'd still kill most of the humans on the planet. Most of the heat generated to cook our food, warm our homes, and make products we use every day comes from combustion; unless you're burning pure hydrogen, you're producing carbon dioxide. Are our leaders truly going to propose going to a pre-fire technological state just to eliminate carbon dioxide emissions?

Now I understand that people don't want to destroy the planet and I applaud them for that, but I do wish they would understand what they were talking about before getting passionate.

 

[Major_Tom]

As an ex-soldier who happens to be a marksman..

Most people are not.

...I can hit a fist sized object from 50 meters away or a torso sized object from 300 meters away easy. Or twice smaller objects if they're immobile.

And this compares with shooting a handgun in a stressful situation, on a street, surrounded with innocent civilians, how?

standard bullets don't usually stay in the body

That's why the police uses hollowpoints, which can also over-penetrate (depending on the calibre) but that's less likely when shot in the torso.

#3. Just because you shot a person in the leg, that doesn't mean it will stop them. Especially if they have a gun.

You seem to be contradicting #2 - it might kill them but not stop them?

This is the point, it won't stop them immediately, but could kill them later (bleeding). Completely opposite of what we want.

 

[Knife]

As an ex-soldier who happens to be a marksman..

Most people are not.

...I can hit a fist sized object from 50 meters away or a torso sized object from 300 meters away easy. Or twice smaller objects if they're immobile.

The man was trying to say marksmen can't make the shot or won't bother because it's too hard.
To reiterate "In either case shooting a person in the leg even with standard guns or rifles for anyone who passed shooting practise should be no problem - and if they can't, they have no business being a soldier/cop to begin with.".

And this compares with shooting a handgun in a stressful situation, on a street, surrounded with innocent civilians, how?

You'll find that shooting is usually done in a stressful situation, so they don't get a pass for that. And I already pointed out that it should be a clear shot or it doesn't matter which bodypart you shoot, knee, torso, arm or head - in the sense that it is quite possible to accidentally hit innocents nonetheless. But shooting a limb instead of a torso might save one life (not a guarantee but a possibility).

standard bullets don't usually stay in the body

That's why the police uses hollowpoints, which can also over-penetrate (depending on the calibre) but that's less likely when shot in the torso.

#3. Just because you shot a person in the leg, that doesn't mean it will stop them. Especially if they have a gun.

You seem to be contradicting #2 - it might kill them but not stop them?

This is the point, it won't stop them immediately, but could kill them later (bleeding). Completely opposite of what we want.

I already pointed out that situation is unlikely on both counts.

Edit: Hollow-points eh? Those are banned in most armies... it is rather disturbing that police uses these. Different applications I suppose, but still quite inhumane.

 

[Queen Michael]

Those stupid "Top 100 unexplained or whatever" lists annoy me to no end. Containing such jaw dropping questions like "Why do kamikaze pilots wear helmets?" or "Why do they execute criminals with sterile needles?". Ugh. Also old wives' tales. No, mother, I'm not going to die if I go out with wet hair.

I get that kamikaze pilots need to protect their heads until it's time for impact, but I don't get the needles thing. Why do they use sterile needles?

 

[Talshere]

Climate Change.

I do a course which focuses quite heavily on climate change and the stupidity of people astounds me.

 

[lacktheknack]

Innovation == something new

Nope, that's "invention". "Innovation" is taking something that exists and doing it differently and/or better.

Narbacular Drop was the (really rough) invention, Portal was the innovation.

 

[robot slipper]

My ex-boyfriend actually thought the term "ignorance/being ignorant" meant the same thing as "to ignore", i.e. if someone is not interacting with you or doesn't respond to what you say. So if someone was ignoring him, he would describe them as "ignorant". So yeah, he was ignorant about the meaning of the word ignorance. No matter how many times I explained this to him, it never managed to sink in.