Forum: Story Discussion and Feedback

Motion seconded.

I think we have a consensus here.

And since I used that word in a sentence, it reminded me of a story I read not that long ago, where the author was talking about counting the population - with the senses results, not the census results... (facepalm)

I am also sensitive to head-hopping.

Yeah, my tend gets sensitive after people hop on it, too! ;D

Naked in School stories where the...

My ludicrous meter is way too sensitive for me to even start a NIS story, so what happens inside the story is irrelevant to me.

for me you can add to NIS:
Vampires
Zombies of any kind or spelling

I can relate. Despite relatively stable sales over the years, I just released a new book about zombies, which has gotten few sales, despite people telling me it's quite good. Some stories just don't attract a wide audience, and those interested in the genre only care about stories that stick to a standard script. :(

@Richard Shagrin

I was told that speaking Portuguese is like speaking Spanish but with a mouthful of mashed potatoes.

Was the man who told you that crewing anything?

One typo (or Freudian slip) that made me chuckle was when a character named Melody turned into Melony.

I'll admit, after so many stories with SO many different characters, I'll often find myself typing another characters' name for the one the story/chapter/sequence is actually about. Luckily, though, my editors catch most of those flubs.

stands out like a sore thumb

I truly despair of the capacity of some things I've read on here. Precedent Washington set the president of not being a king. I don't think there's much proofreading before posting. That's one thing I'm grateful to my creative writing professor for - he pounded it into our heads that you need to check your work before submission. (And this was in the days before word processors - that's when we used FUJ instead. Wite-out, aka fuck up juice.)

Sorry to say, but, IMHO, your ~200 word exposition in "Survivor" did nothing to enhance the story in any way, shape or form and it is just advertisement.

It shows aspects of the character's personality in that he planned ahead for his reading while traveling, uses modern facilities, and is prepared to put aside his preferred reading to read something else to his seat neighbour. I could have had him sit there and ignore the girl, but that would make he look like a rectum. Once I was having him reading on a tablet, then it's a matter of choosing what he reads, and listing them, by using the ones I did I knew there'd be no chance of a legal backlash, especially when they read the story from other sources, which many of my readers do.

In this case it also helps to promote the website for Lazeez.

What is a native?

If the character is represented as someone knows how to speak the language properly, then they should get the language correct, but if the person is presented as being tourist level of knowledge of the language, then the babblefish conversion is more appropriate.

for the most part I like the story and the ideas behind it, 'Association for a Segregated Society White Humans Only Legally Eligible'. While they might seem cute to the author, they tend to take me out of my suspension of disbelief, and therefore lessen the reading experience.

and doesn't make much sense to people from other cultures who spell the same term as arse hole or have English as a second language and don't get it at all.

However, there is a place to use the sort of cutesy acronym building many bureaucrats use in the government for agencies and units. They don't always do it, but sometimes come up with good ones by either intent or accident.

you study astrophysics, you are likely to hear of theoretical explanations of Dark Matter -- Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs) and Massive Astrophysical Compact Halo Objects (MACHOs). I am pretty sure these terms were not coined randomly.

In one of Anne McCaffrey's books she has a character interacting with the Space Authority and she uses two acronyms in use today - when the guy said he was LEO (Law Enforcement Officer) the guard said he didn't look like a Low Earth Orbit.

I used to work in the Aust Public service as a civilian in the RAAF - I dealt with AERs each year (Additional Estimate Request) a budget form. The RAAF officers dealt with Airman's Evaluation Reports and I once referred a fight between budget types and unit admins about when the AERs were due - they only stopped when I was able to point out they were talking about two different items.

One gov't dept I worked for was DIMA (Dept Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) we all said the acronym described the minister and how we were supposed to work. This was the height of Politically Correct terms in the Aust gov.t.

Another Was DELP Department of Environment, Land, and Planning. One unit had the short lived title of Housing Investigations - it didn't last long, they never even got time to order stationary - the top admins didn't like a unit named DELPHI. No one noticed at the time the proposal was put forward - or so they claim.

Back when, my company contracted with the Army's Signal Warfare Laboratory. Its acronym was SWL and pronounced as Swill.

Back when, my company contracted with the Army's Signal Warfare Laboratory. Its acronym was SWL and pronounced as Swill.

You can get some interesting ones. The military often create some great ones by accident, and some bad ones. I always liked the Transport Operations Centre (TOC) and often asked them where the tick was.

The only time I created a deliberate acronym in real life was one company where I managed the nation wide parts stock. During the stocktakes we had to carefully manage stock transfers because the stocktake took 2 weeks to do. I instituted a rule - 'No stock to move from a site unless authorised from HO with a transfer line number' so we had a book with every inter-site stock movement during the stocktake period. This was to help trace discrepancies. The company accountant wanted a special stock transfer form to be created and used solely for stock movements during the stock take - it was to be signed for at every stage. I didn't argue with him, I simply created the form, put the name across the top with the first letter of each word in a huge font and sent it up for funding approval to allocated to get it printed. A short word with the top floor secretarial staff, and the request ended up on the GM's desk for approval, and he stormed out of his office shouting, wanting to know who wanted the form - I named the form Stock Holding in Transit so he comes out shouting, "Who the hell wants a SHiT form?" - oddly enough, the accountant never again bothered me about my work or forms after that incident.

That incident proved the power of a good acronym.

typo edit

can sue a form

my most common typo is sue for use - my hands and fingers work at different speeds no, so some get to the keys faster than others, and out of order.

Would that be digital dyslexia :-)

Is that where you confuse your loved ones for total zeros?

Is that where you confuse your loved ones for total zeros?

I'm going to remember that line but not for the reasons you might think. It has to do with the controversy over the definition of 'random'. :)

AJ

only problem is that it does not have Windows keys on (but it's not big deal)...

to me, that's an advantage.

In the days of my misspent youth, TOC was 'Tactical Operations Center' of a combat unit,

Yeah, as you say, that would be a combat unit - the one I mentioned only provided support services to other units. I've even seen TOC used to do with something about the unit structure, but can't remember what it was.

If you were forced to read a lot of user manuals TOC (as Table of Contents) was most valuable part of them :D

Yeah, it is and I use a ToC with all my stories. Thinking about this since I made the post I think I was told it was a Table of Command - not real sure on that. It wasn't the usual organizational chart which showed the units, it had all that, but also had a bunch of dotted lines with notes beside them designating additional command lines for specific activities.

If you were forced to read a lot of user manuals TOC (as Table of Contents) was most valuable part of them :D

Hey, as an independent publisher, the TOC is often a central figure in my fiction, as I keep referring to it trying to figure out what's where in my stories.

If you were forced to read a lot of user manuals TOC (as Table of Contents) was most valuable part of them :D

Or the index at the back, unless they were written to Microsoft standards where you had to know the answer to be able to look up the answer.

AJ

seen TOC

I think you are thinking of TOE Table of Organization and Equipment

The stomach is a muscular, mucus-lined bag between the oesophagus (US: esophagus) and the small intestine. If it can be seen or touched then there's some pretty damn big opening in the abdomen and the intestines would likely be spilling out, so some show or tell of how the situation arose would be appropriate, and how the situation is resolved from this extreme position.

While you're absolutely correct, I doubt you'll convince many authors, since "stomach" has grown to include 'the belly'. Almost no one uses "belly" anymore, instead using the more generic "stomach" (or more correctly "stomach area" or where the stomach would be located).

Getting punched in the intestines is definitely wrong, but 'being punched in the stomach' is only moderately wrong (given current usage patterns).

because that usage becoming more acceptable is stealing my language from me.

Stealing and evolving/growing/changing are not synonyms. Nobody is stealing anything. Besides, it's our language too.

Nobody is stealing anything. Besides, it's our language too.

Besides, the original meaning never went anywhere. You're still free to use the technical meaning of "stomach" or "gay" whenever you wish. People will eventually figure out what you're talking about, after giggling hysterically, but at least your comments will generate a few smiles.

They're only 'stealing' your language if you're no longer allowed to use it. So far, the thought police haven't slapped anyone with a 'cease and desist' order, and the thought police remain a pretty slap-dash, ineffective crew.

That's only what you've been conditioned to believe. They are in fact extremely competent and effective; they've even convinced the tinfoil manufacturers to change their formulation to allow the psionic machines free access to your brain.

If my tin-foil hat insists it's true, then I have no choice but to believe it.

If my tin-foil hat insists it's true, then I have no choice but to believe it.

That's why you should double-wrap with an insulant between the layers.

If I bothered to think about it there are many more banned words

Sorry, but not a word you listed is "banned". Instead, they simply fell into disuse (i.e. people choose not to use that variation of the word anymore).

It's still perfectly fine to use it, but the majority of people simply don't feel comfortable (ex. they giggle whenever they hear it, because they don't know how to respond). But whether you choose to use it or not isn't determined by any central authority, so have at it.

You, sir, seem to have misapplied the proper definition of "banned".

Perhaps the reason people no longer use the old usage is because of the connotation that is attributed by the new usage.

Undoubtedly. Clearly, the newer usages, such as "gay" for homosexual and the current distain for a certain "N" word is quite widespread, but ranting about how "someone" took over the language is nonsense. It evolved over time, so if you blame anyone, blame English speakers who weren't frozen in the 1950s. A LOT has changed since then, and wishing for a return to your old glory days when you could say any hateful thing you desired (not that you are, but the logical your using is also being applied in that same direction), is nothing more than sheer fantasy.

There is nothing keeping you from using those words (other than common sense, when it's not appreciated by those around you). However, no one has stripped "gay", the infamous "N" word or anything else from the dictionaries. If used appropriately, they're still incredibly powerful words. Take the current bro-ha-ha over renewed attempts to ban "Tom Sawyer" and "To Kill a Mockingbird" for language and 'racial slurs' (Duh! That's the whole point, to illustrate how widespread such thoughts were during that time period, but which 'white America' conveniently swept under the rug).

The point is, they've never disappears, it's the usage that's changed. You need to adapt to the times, not by getting in line and shouting the same slogans as everyone else, but by using the words that upset people to wake them up and get them to see what's NOT being addressed by society. That's always been the role of literature, not to become famous for a run-away hit.

@awnlee

That segues nicely to a problemette I have. My story needs an extremely pejorative noun for a male homosexual which is offensive in English and American.

A nice case in point (see above). Using the term "burning faggot" plays off both uses of the term, and nicely captures the anger of certain segments of society without having to explicitly state the implied threat. Instead, the insults can all be cast underhanded by an offensive character who, if ever challenged, can simply claim ignorance.

That makes for powerful writing. It may not be pleasant, but the usage is hardly banned, but it's uncommon use makes it stronger not weaker.

without having to explicitly state

That's not what I want - the more explicit the better. Sadly I seem to have lost contact with most of my gay friends so I can't really ask them in person what they find the most offensive.

AJ

You, sir, seem to have misapplied the proper definition of "banned".

Banned by the relevant group of militants, whether LGBT, racial, religionist or whatever. In the UK, using certain terms is classified as a 'hate crime'.

AJ

Banned by the relevant group of militants, whether LGBT, racial, religionist or whatever. In the UK, using certain terms is classified as a 'hate crime'.

And here I thought Germany was the only one with explicit "hate crime" laws banning words (such as "Nazi" or "Hitler"). I was under the impression that England still allowed the use of such words. In America, there ARE no "Hate" word crimes, instead, it's ONLY a crime is you use certain speech in committing a crime, labeling the action (by the one committing the act) as being inspired by hatred. Thus it turns the act upon the perpetrator, rather than going after someone simply using the word against others.

The UK had something called Section 5 which was being widely abused by the police - they arrested a student for asking a police horse if it was gay, and a man for saying 'woof' to a dog. In response the government brought in new freedom of speech law under which those arrests could never have been made. In retaliation the police exploited 'hate crime' law to subvert the government intent.

That's an unintended consequence of Thatcher and Blair politicising the police force.

AJ

In retaliation the police exploited 'hate crime' law to subvert the government intent.

But that was my original (not very direct) question. Aren't those laws like ours, intended to accompany other laws, not intended to stand alone on their own? Are the local cops simply apply the law on their own, or was that how they were written?

@Awnlee

Sadly I seem to have lost contact with most of my gay friends so I can't really ask them in person what they find the most offensive.

Which? "gay Paris" or "can I bum a faggot" (to put an American spin on a British usage)?

If you're going for a pejorative (for a story), you want it to have some teeth (as you noted), and in most real-world scenarios, most offenders would want some 'deniability' in case they get called on it. Either way, it should hurt if you want it to accurately reflect how the characters feel about the abuse.

Faggot, though, is largely dated in either case. You'll note, the alt-right is very much into 'coded' language which sounds correct, but which everyone know actually stands in for something else.

I asked some of my more recent gay friends (all my old ones died during the AIDS crisis) which insults they were more likely to face during a high-school encounter, but none seemed to want to answer the question. You might need to ask Quora (and face potential condemnation from their online gay contingent). It may be better to make up your own, keeping it vaguely Shakespearean.

@Not_a_ID

a recent encounter I had with one was where the author was trying to refer to someone as "an old geezer" but called them "an old geyser" instead.

It may have been an age-insult, instead, being "an old guyser". Believe it or not, I've heard that used on occasion.

P.S. Nowadays, it seems everyone is using "Trumpism" as 'catchall' phrases for whomever they object to. The advantage there, is Trump has given them the feeling they can say anything to anyone they want, as long as it's tied into opposition to Trump, rather than the direct result of outright racism. Thus "Go back to where you belong" is a decent catchall, even though it makes little sense when applied to Americans born and bred in America.

I believe the govt intent was that speech which causes offence is okay but speech which is intended to incite hatred isn't okay. But local police forces have taken it upon themselves to decide certain words incite hatred no matter what the context. I'm sure the controversy will flare up again soon.

AJ

speech which causes offence is okay but speech which is intended to incite hatred isn't okay.

Sounds a lot like thought police to me.

How do you determine the speaker's intent?

One person may judge a statement as just offensive. Another person may interpret the statement as being an attempt to create hatred in another person. The end result is placing the police officer in a position to guess at what is motivating the speaker and the officers personal feelings about the topic can easily sway their decision as to whether a crime has been committed.

Yes, the situation is extremely unsatisfactory.

AJ

Police and the courts are well accustomed to handling issues of intent.

But it has to included in the actual wording of the law before it becomes a component of the criteria for the law's application. Too many laws written now do

I can't speak to Australian law, but that is dead flat backwards to US law.

I'd be checking that with a lawyer, if I were you. The basic rule of all laws in all jurisdictions is you may only take into account whatever aspects that particular says in its wording as being applicable to the law you're looking at. If it requires a consideration of intent, then intent has to be shown, if it doesn't require a consideration of intent, then intent is not an aspect to be considered in the application of the law. When handing down a sentence a judge may take into consideration intent as an aspect of severity, but he isn't required to do so, and intent doesn't have to be proven to obtain a conviction. That's why the old basic of lack of knowledge of the law is not a valid defence. Many laws, even very old laws, have had people being guilty of the offence despite lack of intent because they didn't know what they were doing was a crime or against the law in some way.

Intent under US law for criminal purposes is intent to commit the prohibited act, not intent to violate the law as such. So you can have intent without knowing a given act is illegal.

Without knowledge it's a prohibited act you can't have any intent to violate the law. If the way you present the mens rea was as solid as you claim, then it's impossible to charge anyone with a crime until AFTER you prove they had knowledge it was a crime and they intended to do it.

A very classic case in the accidental discharge of a firearm inside town or city limits - there is no intention to fire the gun when it goes off by accident, yet the crime is still committed and the person is still charged. The situation also applies if you're on the edge of a farm and that part is inside the town limits while the rest of the farm isn't - no intent to fire the gun within the town limits, but still charged and guilty.

People regularly get trapped in the wrong lane and end up having to cross the border into Canada or the USA before they can turn around to travel back, there is no intent to cross the border, and no intent to take prohibited items across the border, but they still get checked and charged should they violate the law without any intention.

The same applies when you cross between legal jurisdictions where they have a change in what's legal and what's not legal - there's no intent to break the law, but they still get charged and convicted.

The wording of what's in the law is what rules, and if something is not in the law itself it can't be a matter for consideration in the application of the law.

In the US, this would not be a crime and the person would probably not be charged.

Yet there have been reported incidents of it happening and people being charged.

I am aware of no such cases in the US where the discharge was clearly unintentional/accidental.

In certain cities and states, yes. For example, here in Oklahoma, "Discharging a firearm within a municipality (inside city limits) is illegal, even if a firearm is discharged on private property."

It's called reckless endangerment.

Having said that, most of the time you're NOT going to face more than a small fine (at least here) if all you do is have an accidental discharge. And I am freely allowed to discharge any of my firearms in defense of my home, my property, or even my dogs in my own yard, even though I'm within city limits.

Any = Sig P238, Glock 17 Gen 4, Sig M400

FWIW, my college degree (Masters) is in Criminology. What you guys were arguing about with Mens Rea is primarily only applied to children and/or mentally impaired people. The biggest discussion is whether or at what age a child has the mental capacity to realize that their actions could be illegal. Once you're past a certain age, and presuming you're mentally competent, your specific intent is irrelevant. It's what you're CHARGED with that becomes important.

For example - it's the middle of summer, you break into a house and eat some food that was in the house. Wow, that's breaking and entering, as well as theft, potentially burglary. Now - it's -20 degrees outside, your car broke down, you have no shelter, and this house was it. In both cases your knowledge that what you were doing was against the law is the same. That's what mens rea (guilty mind) means - are you capable on KNOWING what you did was against the law.

You're confusing intentions with intent. They are, from a legal perspective, different.

I am aware of no such cases in the US where the discharge was clearly unintentional/accidental.

The few cases I know about are from a few years ago where the news media reported cases of kids finding a gun and were looking at it when the gun went off. On one case no one was hit, in one another kid was little wounded, and in the third another kid was seriously hurt when shot. In all three the kid playing with the gun stated they had no intention of firing it, they were just looking at it when it went off. In all three cases the kid holding the gun at the time of being discharged were charged with a number of state crimes concerning the gun and firing it. names weren't given due to the ages of those involved. In one case the both the kids involved thought it was a heavier than usual toy. - - clearly no intent to do anything, yet they ended up with juvenile criminal records. The laws involved did not require intent as part of the law they were charged under.

Police and the courts are well accustomed to handling issues of intent.

True, but they don't always get it right.

in most real-world scenarios, most offenders would want some 'deniability'

***spoiler alert***
It's a private conversation between a girl and her mother. The girl realises her mother has deliberately been trying to set her up with a gay boyfriend. No deniability needed but maximum offence required.

AJ

No deniability needed but maximum offence required.

"Faggot" would definitely work, though most young people (high-school and college) are more accepting of gays, whereas they aren't as accepting of well-meaning adults. Plus, as I stated earlier, "faggot" is a very dated term (which is why it sprang to mind).

I'd go with something like: "He's a flamer!" as it implies her mother has no conception of the social cost, rather than the daughter is anti-gay herself.

How about the name for a meat concoction and for bundles of sticks (as used in ancient Rome) - a faggot?

Americans use cigarette instead :)

That segues nicely to a problemette I have. My story needs an extremely pejorative noun for a male homosexual which is offensive in English and American.

AJ

an extremely pejorative noun for a male homosexual which is offensive in English and American

Barack Obama ....

(I'll just wait over here now...)

Barack Obama ....

(I'll just wait over here now...)

You really want to go there? Giving up on the Muslim claim? The shaved, bacon-eating, beer drinking, LGBT supporting part finally soak in? :)

'being punched in the stomach' is only moderately wrong (given current usage patterns).

CW, how about being punched on the shirt (or jacket/coat) placing sudden intensely focused force on the skin and abdominal wall immediately in front of the stomach. :)

Getting hit in it, rubbing it, seeing it, pretty well any physical action on it - it's NOT the stomach that's involved, it's the belly, abdomen, tummy, gut (though I'm against the last one as well).

Stomach is the general usage word for the area involved. Also, in general, people only refer to a belly when the person is very obese (such as a beer belly), and abdomen is usually taken to include the chest area as well. I'm not saying the usage is accurate, but that's how most people see and use the terms.

To insist the use of the word stomach for a hit on a person at waist level on the front of their body would mean you should insist they writers always use the words vagina and penis instead of any of the other common terms they use. Of course, if the character is a physician, he might tend to use the technical terms all the time, but most doctors I know only get technical with other medical staff.

typo edit

Fudge packer.

or "fudge pucker" (or would that be "puckerer"?) Maybe "He who puckers fudges"?

Note: That's a definite sign I've taken this pun way too far.

Member of the pile drivers association is one I haven't heard used for decades.

Also, bumming a fag is an old term I've not heard for a long time, either, and it has nothing to do with homosexuality, but all to cadging a cigarette off someone.

Still in use here in the NT by some people.

Here in the "New Testament"? 'D "Neapolitan Transportation"?

I would think Northwest Territories, Canada.

That's what I figured, but I though a gentle reminder that not everyone would know to make that assumption. It's those unclear regional usages that often lose readers from other regions. After all, not everyone lives next door to Canada.

perhaps
arseplugger (assplugger, assfucker)

I've scoured the thesauruses for synonyms but nothing sounds totally suitable (although I was amused by 'chutney ferret').

My defective brain keeps prompting me with the adjective 'raging' but it can't quite remember the noun that it's paired with in this context. :(

AJ

I don't know how offensive they are considered in the US, but Nancy, Queen, Fairy and knob gobbler are all ones I remember, of which the first three could all be prefaced by raging.

The problem is the generational conflict. Most alt-right are the exception, and rarely use the traditional slurs, while most young people wouldn't denigrate gays. They may not want to associate with them, but they see homophobia as a problem of their parents' generation. Also, younger women are nervous around lesbians and men around gays because they're paranoid about being hit on, not because they disapprove of them. Most young women now have several 'fabulous' gay companions.

I suspect that's why my gay friends were unable to pick any common slurs, because the slurs they faced in high school and beyond are mostly from the older generations, not from high school encounters with students.

Any gay or lesbian readers want to chip in here, since the rest of us really don't know what the hell we're talking about?

two straight females which means that it is a term that would be considered as offensive by the women, not necessarily by a gay male.

I want all the readers to feel the term was overtly offensive, otherwise the scene loses its power.

AJ

Raging cock sucker may fit, but terms like queer and queen are now used by some of the gay community as compliments, not insults.

Believe me, it's like when blacks try to 'reclaim' the N-word. They may get away with using it, but when someone else uses it against them, it still hurts as much as it ever did. It's the hate that cuts you to the bone, not the words themselves.

I was just struck by how reluctant my gay friends are with identifying pejorative terms used against them, seeing it as indicative of bigger social issues. Then again, I may be reading more into it than actually exists.

it still hurts as much as it ever did. It's the hate that cuts you to the bone, not the words themselves.

It's the hate the recipient associates with the word that's the issue, not the word itself. I know people from the USA who get extremely angry if you call them a Yank and others who feel proud to be called by the same word. The word itself has no intrinsic hate value, just what some people associate with it.

On a related issue is how in recent times some people are now angry about the Army of Virginia Battle flag and claim it's a symbol of racial suppression, yet those who fought under it, fought against it, and even the slaves of the area where it flew never saw it that way, and for over a century since then it wasn't seen that way. But Historical Revisionist paint it that way now, and some now see it that way.

How would one feel then about a neighbor flying the Nazi swastika from their front porch? Not a symbol of racial suppression, but only a battle symbol for a race that fought bravely?

Assuming it is the Nazi Swastika (formally known as the Third Reich Flag - link below to the red flag with white circle and black marking) and not the original religious one, I'd take it as a political statement. Also, in WW2 flags were rarely flown by troops during battle, they usually came out after the shooting was over, unlike as what happened during the US War Between the States, so it isn't the same situation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_German_Reich_(1935%E2%80%931945).svg

.......................

Taking a sideways step here, if people feel the Battle Flag of the Army of Virginia is a symbol of racism, then the US Stars and Stripes is a much bigger symbols of racism because it was flown by, and above, the military units of the US Army who went about the task of indiscriminately killing American Indians for many decades so the US government could steal their land and resources to sell or give to other people they preferred. The same can be said for how the US authorities dealt with the Mexicans in California, New Mexico, and Texas.

And about the Spanish conquistadors and every other nation that raised an army to conquer another country.

About the Spanish, true, and many others, but not all.

Taking a sideways step here, if people feel the Battle Flag of the Army of Virginia is a symbol of racism, then the US Stars and Stripes is a much bigger symbols of racism because it was flown by, and above, the military units of the US Army who went about the task of indiscriminately killing American Indians for many decades so the US government could steal their land and resources to sell or give to other people they preferred.

Whew! That's a long sentence, even for me!

The issues isn't who hurt who in what war. The main issue is that they (Southern Whites) are flying the flag of a non-existent country who lost a rebellion over a century ago to 'honor their relatives' who they never knew.

The only conclusion most people can come up with, is that it has little to do with any actual battle or long-dead relatives, but more about race. Flying the symbols of the war (i.e. the Confederate flag), is shorthand for 'I wish American had collapsed, and every white person was still free to buy, crucify and sell any (insert your favorite minority) they want.

After all, how many people continue to fly the Armenian flag today?

The main issue is that they (Southern Whites) are flying the flag of a non-existent country who lost a rebellion over a century ago to 'honor their relatives' who they never knew.

Two points,

First, the Battle Flag of the Army of Virgina was not the flag of a country, but that of a military unit. If flying the flag of a past military unit is wrong, then you have to stop them flying a lot at Memorial Day marches for units that are no longer active.

Second, some of the people flying the Confederate Flag as well as the Battle Flag are of Afro-American descent, they fly it because it relates to a part of their heritage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifaB5viGLQU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jadmjn3ebs&t=1s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAuUiwCNS6w

ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-b1BdfkAsI

It's only in recent years have people been claiming it was about racism because that how they want it to be seen, when it wasn't.

I don't agree with a lot of what Foote has to say most of the time, but much of what he says here is true.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9J8P6WfS7w

.......................

However, you've not addressed why it's OK to fly a flag more steeped in racism and genocide than another is. Either both are OK or neither is OK.

First, the Battle Flag of the Army of Virgina was not the flag of a country, but that of a military unit.

Except, once again it's not simply a military unit flag, but one which just happens to contain the flag of the Confederacy. So you've got to ask yourself, how many Civil War flags fly over modern capitals in the south from any OTHER unit commands? If the answer is none, then we're left with the same question. Is it really about historic pride, or about trying to intimidate and suppress blacks throughout the south?

Having lived here for most of my life, I can only concede it's the latter.

Second, some of the people flying the Confederate Flag as well as the Battle Flag are of Afro-American descent, they fly it because it relates to a part of their heritage.

If you live in the South, you either fly the Confederate flag (or at least don't make a deal about it) or you'll spend the rest of your life fighting with every white you encounter. It's not surprising many find it easier to conform to a racist society, what is, is how few of them there are!

It's also like Trump rallies (with many of the same people). If you only have a couple blacks supporting your cause, you highlight them every single chance you get (remember the quote about "my one black fan"?). Part of gaining acceptance among their childhood/professional peers is the recognition they're going to drag you image through the mud, meaning you'll be looked down on by most other blacks. It's a choice they choose. Rather than celebrating their heritage, they're surrendering it in hopes of getting along.

However, you've not addressed why it's OK to fly a flag more steeped in racism and genocide than another is. Either both are OK or neither is OK.

Sadly, it's a question of numbers. Over time, you learn to pick your battles. You can hardly win all the time, or even very often, but you don't pick a fight with hundreds of millions of committed foes. Instead, you choose the targets which you can change, who's support isn't solid. For ever rabid Southern rebel, there are dozens who shake their heads and hope they'll simply disappear.

There are very few who'll support giving America back to the Indians. However, people will support their trying to protect their lands.

It's about changing minds, getting them to recognize why others are offended by their actions. It's NEVER been about banning the flag! As far as I know, the ONLY flag that's ever been banned (for an extended period) is the Nazi flag in Germany (it's frequently flown in virtually every other country).

It's the same thing with the RedSkins. While a trademark is important, you've got to ask why it's so important they'd ignore a large percentage of their fans who find the symbol offensive. Surely they can find another symbol which would be more popular. Companies do it all the time to 'reinvent' their image.

But, now that I've vented about an issue everyone is sick and tired of hearing about, I'll shut up. After all, everyone has heard these same arguments ad-infinitum. If they haven't been won over yet, they're unlikely to anytime soon. Once again, it's about picking your battles. I won't win any converts here. Instead, we wait for my Southern companions to do something else incredibly stupid (they're dependable that way), and they'll expose the ugly underbelly of institutional racism. We only chip away at that racism. It's never gone away, and it's unlikely it ever will, but the more minds we can change (one at a time), hopefully the better off everyone will be.

We only chip away at that racism. It's never gone away, and it's unlikely it ever will, but the more minds we can change (one at a time), hopefully the better off everyone will be.

Well said - The whole comment, but I didn't want to quote the whole thing for my brief reply. As for the American flag, we look at it as a symbol of what we are now and what we strive to be. Not what we were. Our country is not perfect. Point me to one that is and has a spotless history free from cruelty, injustice and atrocity.

If you live in the South, you either fly the Confederate flag (or at least don't make a deal about it) or you'll spend the rest of your life fighting with every white you encounter.

What you fail to get into is that traditions in the South tend to run a bit stronger than they do in the North. And the minor detail that the past eight years have set race relations back thirty or more.

I live in both a Southern and Indian state (feather, not dot) - Oklahoma. While there are certainly some backwoods rednecks here, there are many more that take PRIDE that their ancestors violated the law. There's a reason why our sports team chant is 'Boomer Sooner' - celebrating illegal activities.

See, people confuse racism with offense by throwing in political correctness. We know that we lost the War of Northern Aggression - we just don't give a shit what others think. Does it irritate you? Too bad. Welcome to Freedom of Speech in this country. We DO understand why others are offended - we just don't care. We get along with our friends and neighbors regardless of their color, because we know that we all bleed red, white and blue.

It's the same thing with the RedSkins. While a trademark is important, you've got to ask why it's so important they'd ignore a large percentage of their fans who find the symbol offensive.

It's because a larger percentage of their fans think those that are complaining about are full of shit. Again, I live and work with (and for that matter, am 1/16th myself) Indians. As a people, THEY have THEIR pride, too. That the football team that represents the whole nation chose their people as the representatives isn't seen as being offensive, it's seen as a point of PRIDE.

You also leave out one minor detail - the flag of the Army of Northen Virgina - was ALSO used by the Army of Tennessee when it replaced the Army of the Mississippi, because Joe Johnston designed them both. It's simply the Confederate Battle Flag.

As for incredible stupidity - keep in mind as a country we freed the slaves in 1865. It took the Democrat party of LBJ to trick them into putting the shackles back on and trying to keep them that way today.

CW,

I'm against racism, but I'm also against the misuse of the racism card, and other prejudices, as well.

I'm against racism, but I'm also against the misuse of the racism card, and other prejudices, as well.

It's easy to be against something in principle. It's something else to stand up against it when it'll cost you something. I've faced that line many times, but I also know a LOT of people for whom it means life itself. I have it easy, few people will attack a fellow White man, so I can speak for those unable to speak for themselves.

Damn, there I go ranting to myself again. Especially after promising not to! Someone shut that man (me) up.

After all, how many people continue to fly the Armenian flag today?

I don't know about you, but I do.

My opinion is that they use it as a way to say "See, we can use it but you can't even say it. You have to say 'the N word' or we will play the race card."

The attempt to reclaim 'nigger' is similar to that to reclaim the prejorative "gay". The second was largely successful, the first hasn't borne much fruit except making a name for a few rappers.

Either the word works for everyone as a positive image, or it'll forever retain it's hateful characteristics. (Though "negroid", "african", "black", "African-American" and others haven't worked much better. No matter what word anyone uses, the racial hatred the persists in the U.S. remains largely unabated.)

I want all the readers to feel the term was overtly offensive, otherwise the scene loses its power.

Okay, that's what I suspected, but I wasn't sure. In that case, the classics are usually the best. Just to change things up, I might (myself) throw in an 'alt-right' friend to advice her on what to say, but that's just for flavor, rather than changing the story (simply acknowledging the issue).

Generally, in a fit of anger, someone will use the first thing ("faggot") that springs to mind, rather than looking for something clever or subtle.

I can't see why bringing meaningless labels like alt-right into the topic has any relevance to the request. I would also be extremely dubious about any claim that "most" young people wouldn't denigrate gays, as it depends on the circles someone is in and I have never seen a scientific survey on that topic. There appear to be certain communities/races/religions in both the UK and US that are extremely opposed to homosexuality and express that quite freely.

My point, and I did have one, was that painting the younger girl as the homophobe (since the mother was setting her up with a gay man) might be badly miscasting. I'm not saying it won't work, only that he may want to review it, taking that into account and possible acknowledging it to delve further into what drives the characters.

I always find that recognizing a problem is the first step in solving problems which otherwise end up catching you by surprise.

But again, from what he said, it sounds like the girl is more upset at the mother for setting her up with a gay guy, and the possible social effects it would have no her, than she was against gays in general (though, clearly, I could be misreading the situation).

I've been blindsides my, what I considered at the time, to be 'minor issues' with a story before.

the only way he will ever have kids is if a boyfriend gets him pregnant

A recent article in my tabloid du jour claimed that because I drink soya milk, which contains oestrogen-like compounds, my fertility could be impaired, reducing my ability to conceive.

While the prospect of me conceiving in the first place is interesting on an intellectual level, I think I'd rather leave it to the ladies :-)

AJ

I blame my defective brain, but it seems 'raging' would be wildly inappropriate for my context. A trawl round slang dictionaries shows that it means someone is a flamboyant homosexual, often to the point of self-caricature.

Raging is similar to "flaming", meaning someone who's unable to hide their being gay, as is thus frequently a subject of attack.

@ustourist

Both would cause the mother to think, or get the point across to her, but might bring a smile from the reader rather than a gasp.

I believe awnlee was going for an angry retort, not a clever or subtle one. If so, nothing's quite as obvious as, "He's a fudgepacker, Mom, queer as a friggin' three-dollar bill!"

All the references are dated, but somehow, many of those offense terms never seem to go out of style when someone is angry.

I believe awnlee was going for an angry retort, not a clever or subtle one.

Spot on. I'm not sure how common 'fudgepacker' is - I had to look it up to confirm the meaning when Ron Dudderie used it.

AJ

Bent as a dog's hind leg.

To her Mom:

The only way he'd touch me was with someone else's dick, as long as he was connected to it!

Too subtle? (But again, that's more directed at the mother, instead of the gay guy the Mom's suggesting.

I'll keep that in mind, Kim, but Japanese doesn't pop up (in stories) as often as many other nationalities. We currently get a LOT more Chinese visitors to the U.S. than we do Japanese. However, there are a LOT of reliable name sources on the internet to select names from (censuses, international name sites, baby name sites, etc.), so there's really no reason to invent them out of whole cloth.

When in doubt (about the use of foreign languages) I frequently use fivrr to hire a native speaker. It's cheap and the results are so much better than the crappy Google Translate.

The major opponents is the Re Dickulous party, whose major interest is how people use dicks.

I wouldn't mind 'Re-Dicking' a few politicians!

Loose vs lose.

often caused by a finger stutter

I think it's a common error like COULD OF instead of COULD HAVE. Another pet peeve.

I think that's when people don't realize that it's COULD'VE. But that should also only be done in conversation, otherwise write both words.

Paul could have, should have made the basket.
Paul lamented, "I could've, should've made that basket!"

I could've, should've made that basket

A character's voice should determine if contractions are used in dialog; not some rule. Not using contractions could be one of the characteristics that define the character.

then there are people like me

Are you volunteering to be the role model for that type of character? :)

Characters who don't use contractions are usually the villains. At least they have a more interesting time than the goody-two-shoes hero :)

AJ

Teal'c!

I have a somewhat idiosyncratic view on that. I like to make my stories as readable as possible, and I usually take the view that, as the narrator, it's fine if all the speech I report is in my own style of speaking. Different characters should be differentiable according to the content of what they're saying.

Judging my the stories of others, I'm probably in a minority. But when two characters are conversing in 'Standard Galactic', I think that eg artificially including or omitting contractions has no point.

AJ

I have a somewhat idiosyncratic view on that. I like to make my stories as readable as possible, and I usually take the view that, as the narrator, it's fine if all the speech I report is in my own style of speaking. Different characters should be differentiable according to the content of what they're saying.

It's fine to have a relaxed narrator (as per my earlier discussion about the omnipotent narrator), but one should always be character in separating the narrator from the author. Too many reader already assume they are one and the same, and thus accuse the author of things the character does. Thus if you write about racists, readers may assume you're also a racist. If the story attacks racists, then readers will assume you have an agenda, rather than merely telling a fictional story.

In short, give the narrator a personality, but don't make them sound just like you. A little distance is good for everyone.

I also tend to avoid contractions when a character is not a native-level English speaker.

Good idea. I'd really not given it much consideration before (and I include a fair number of foreigners (non-natives) in my stories.

Just read my pet peeve. Loose vs lose.

Fuck's sake.

often caused by a finger stutter

Fuck's sakes are caused by loose fingers. However, loose fingers lose their grip, and you end up losing them in equally loose nether regions!

Note: Just playing around with formatting quotes.

omnipotent God-like narrator

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent - it says so right here on the label.

If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks, please. Cash and in small bills."

RAH, 1973

Sorry, CW, but that was the first thing I thought of when I read your comment. I may have been corrupted by free thinking at an early age.

Sorry, CW, but that was the first thing I thought of when I read your comment. I may have been corrupted by free thinking at an early age.

Don't worry, I can relate. However, that's generally how authors describe the omni narrator. I've been on a bit of a mission lately, suggesting that it's better to give your narrators a little personality and a few flaws. Readers prefer flawed characters, and if the narrator goes off track or takes sides, it'll keep them guessing.

I don't always identify my narrator, but I prefer knowing who they are when I start writing, so I know how to flavor the narration.

For the most part, my narrator is simply a fireside story teller, detailing a story he's heard told many times. Other times they're either a character in the story or a relative, who's learned all the details of what happened over time. However, making 3rd Omni less omnipotent makes the narrator more interesting (in my own humble opinion).

In fact, in my latest story (the one I'm working on now), I'm considering rewriting the entire thing to make the narrator more active in the story.

You can't blame the 'liberal elite' for directing public thought

Why can't I? Who made them correct? Seems to me that their opinions are self-appointed - they're the ones who decided that they were the champions of everything.

small-town values don't generate much income, lead to more jobs, or improve anyone's future

Yes and no. Small towns don't NEED much income typically - and let's be realistic, if you're in a farming community (for example), you're around some people who are really well off - but it's all in equipment. A new combine can easily cost between $500,000 and $600,000, for example. Even one that's several years old is still worth 6 figures.

But it's not all about the money - it's also about the culture, the self-worth, and community. Small town values are what built the country, and remain the bedrock upon which it stands. Your neighbor gets hurt and can't harvest his crop - the whole community bands together and helps him out. Liberal big city values - your neighbor gets hurt and can't cut his grass, you call the city and have him fined.

the hostility between 'city' and 'country' people continue to escalate

Again, yes and no. There are many big cities in this nation that are very much still country. They're just typically not found on either coast, and for darn sure they're not liberal. (Austin is the exception, but we all know about Austin, anyway.)

As for the hostility - well, look what your 'liberal elite' brought us: We have to pass this bill to find out what's in it. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Hands up, don't shoot. The police acted stupidly with Dr. Gates. At this point, what difference does it make?

Why can't I? Who made them correct? Seems to me that their opinions are self-appointed - they're the ones who decided that they were the champions of everything.

In case you didn't miss it, the point was about few people paying attention to regional concerns when the economy is stifled due to lack of opportunity. And your position is that there are NO self-appointed, opinionated "champions of everything" on the conservative side?

Buck bickering about whether liberals or conservatives are right or wrong won't achieve much, either here, nationally or internationally. As long as no one is willing to compromise and implement changes, nothing will ever change. And when one side forces drastic changes on everyone else, all the changes will simply be reversed when the next side takes over in subsequent elections.

Whatever your positions, we've got to figure out how to work together, and threatening to change slander laws to prevent criticism won't help.

nothing will ever change

I thought that was the whole point. Muddle through, make things work that need to work, and simply keep calm and chive on. Those people who feel motivated can improve their lot in life, those that don't ... don't.

As for drastic changes - I distinctly recall listening to assorted talk radio hosts warning that changing legislative rules was a bad thing, because it could turn around and bite them in the butt. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, karma is being served and as the Klingons say, it's a dish best served cold.

As for working together - I'm honestly all for it. So long as working together actually means doing just that - not just doing what the liberal left says. I do give Bill Clinton kudos for that - he DID know how to compromise. I didn't agree with his politics, but he did make things work.

I'm not saying I'm not amused by the childish reactions all around - on the contrary, I find it hilarious. But crying and putting on safety pins isn't going to accomplish anything.

As for working together - I'm honestly all for it. So long as working together actually means doing just that - not just doing what the liberal left says. I do give Bill Clinton kudos for that - he DID know how to compromise. I didn't agree with his politics, but he did make things work.

We can at least agree with that. Bill was a Statesmen, while Obama wasn't. Part of the reason Hillary lost, is probably because few could see her ever reaching across the aisle like her hubby did (even though the opposition tried to impeach him for something most politicians do). He didn't take that personally, though I'm not sure she could put such things aside. She never came across as being terribly personable and had a terrible stage presence, which always left her looking stiff and dishonest (like most, I wasn't crazy about ANY of the choices in this last election).

By the way, the safety pins isn't a form of protest, but a way of reaching out to those most impacted (i.e. those at risk of being deported) as a 'safe resource' who'll try to intercede on their behalf). That's also why some Trump supporters have also taken to wearing safety pins, so they can target those same people (isolated reports only)!

like most, I wasn't crazy about ANY of the choices in this last election

Tell me about it. Couple of elections ago, I supported Herman Cain. That didn't end well for him. This time I liked Ted Cruz. Again, that didn't end well. His first time running, I liked what Ross Perot said. And we all know how that went.

What's funny from a political standpoint is that by all rights I should be Democrat. I used to work in a factory, I supported trying to unionize the place to protect the workers, I grew up in a Democrat home where my dad was on a first name basis with our state senator (they were neighbors when growing up) and I personally know his son (and the former governor of the state). Go figure.

I'm sure it's how a lot of people here in the south are - they WERE Democrat, but they're not liberals. When the liberals really took over the national party, since our two party system doesn't give us viable alternatives, they had to choose Republican.

by all rights I should be Democrat

You are right about this last election presenting us with no good choices. That was the way I felt the first time I registered to vote. I still haven't found a party that I feel is worth supporting; they are all in the toilet.

I still haven't found a party that I feel is worth supporting; they are all in the toilet.

That's the key, each party focuses on certain 'key word' issues like "Obamacare" or "Abortion Rights", instead of focusing on ANY issues really impacting voters lives. People then vent all their anger over unimportant issues, rather than venting their angst at the politicians. In that regard, Trump is as 'seasoned' as any career politician.

Trump is as 'seasoned' as any career politician.

Conmen make great politicians. Really good conmen get re-elected.

Tell me about it. Couple of elections ago, I supported Herman Cain. That didn't end well for him. This time I liked Ted Cruz. Again, that didn't end well. His first time running, I liked what Ross Perot said. And we all know how that went.

What's funny from a political standpoint is that by all rights I should be Democrat.

In my first election, I voted for Richard Milhouse Nixon and was proud of it (mostly because of his 'ping-pong diplomacy' with China). Then Watergate unraveled, and I never looked back.

Since then, I've never regretted my vote, though the selection was flawed, rather than my choice of available candidates.

anything the left has said be put in to action

Obamacare.
Fast and Furious.

Just to name two ...

Fast and Furious.

Uh, hate to break it to you, but "Fast and Furious" was a police action, rather than a political agenda by the left. The FBI chief may have been a Democrat, but that's hardly indicative of any 'liberal agenda'. As they old saying goes: "Cops be cops". And as anyone who's ever lived in the streets, when the cops show up, everyone disappears rather than get shot, arrested, beaten or framed.

The problem now is, with all the intelligent criminals dead, the only ones left are the brain-dead thugs who don't know enough to avoid confrontations with cops! Hint: when black people confront cops, it don't bode well for the blacks, in ANY circumstances!

rather than a political agenda by the left

It was proven that one of the reasons that ATF was doing the gunrunning with the permission of the Obama DOJ was so that they could use this evidence of lawlessness to impose stricter gun regulations here. If that's not a left political agenda item, I don't know what is.

the brain-dead thugs who don't know enough to avoid confrontations with cops

Pretty much. Police officer says Stop and put your hands up, you STOP and PUT YOUR HANDS UP. Yes sir, how may I assist you? I'll grant you that I'm caucasian, but I've been pulled over before here. (I literally had a taillight out and didn't know it.) Kept my hands ON the steering wheel. Officer comes up, Hi, Officer, I will be glad to show you my license and insurance. Please note that I was at the shooting range and I have unloaded firearms behind my seat, transporting them from the range to my home as allowed by the law. I will be more than happy to exit the vehicle so you may confirm that. (I may have also been wearing my Army Veteran hat, and smelled like gunpowder since I'd just put about 200 rounds through my Glock and 120 through my AR. I also had my receipt and target from the range, too.)

A series of really bad movies?

Gunrunning - the DOJ allowed (forced) certain shops in the southwest to do massive straw purchases on weapons, allegedely so they could track them to the drug cartels. Net result was a lot of dead Mexicans and at least one dead US Border agent - and a LOT of US sold guns in Mexican drug cartel hands.

As for working together - I'm honestly all for it. So long as working together actually means doing just that - not just doing what the liberal left says.

From the tone of your other posts, I interpret that sentence to mean not doing anything liberals suggest - sort of like how the Republicans in congress vowed to block President Obama from his first day in office to his last.

Now its the Democrats turn. Not much of a chance in a Republican controlled Congress. I wonder it they will turn to Twitter to take their views to the American Public.

Social media is already about conflicting personal views. Just wait until the Politicians start Twitter wars that we can all join.