I don't like not being good at things; and yes our new (*barf*) mayor is awful, stop calling him fat
We had a test in my copyediting class last week and at the time I thought I did pretty well, but the instructor posted an answer key today and I don't remember answering many of the questions in the way the key indicates . . . I have a tickling feeling that some of these are not the same questions I answered at all, like she posted the key to a slightly different version of the test or something? But I think that is unlikely. I will just have to wait until the end of class tonight to find out how I really did. ETA: tests have not been marked yet, so I still don't know how well I did, but it WAS the wrong answer key, so in that I feel vindicated.
Speaking of failure, the city of Toronto dropped the ball hard last night. According to the CBC, only 53.2% of potential voters actually voted (and that's up from 39% in 2006, ugh, how are so many people so apathetic?), and 47.1% of them voted for the florid windbag.
I shouldn't need to tell you, I'm pretty grievously bummed about this. I'm trying to take comfort in things like knowing that he's only got one vote on the council, and if he never passed a single motion in ten years as a councillor, how much better are his chances now? I'm not cheered up by the fat-bashing. First, the guy has so much going against him (racist, homophobic, anti-immigration, anti-environment, cyclist-hating, wife-beating, drunk-driving, mud-slinging, tantrum-throwing, wannabe-activist-murdering, shit-for-brains, goat-raping* NIMBY liar toad festering like an infected ingrown hair in the ass-crack of the city) . . . is "fat" really the worst thing you can think of to call him? Second, yes, he is fat, we can see that, incorporating it into any of the epithets we use to describe him is really unnecessary. THIRD AND MOST IMPORTANTLY: what does it matter if he is fat? "Fat" is not a moral condition; we should not ever mistake its presence or absence for evidence on which to build a moral judgment. The fact that he is a grotesque parody of a human being has nothing to do with the fact that he is fat. Even the people who say "well, he's fat, he'll probably have a heart attack and die before he gets the chance to do much damage"--I'm sorry, but fuck right off with that noise, size and cardiac health really do not correlate as smoothly as you'd like to imagine. He might be unhealthy, heartwise, and that could have as much or more to do with genetic predisposition or the fact that he is EVIL AND WHOLLY DEVOID OF COMPASSION as it does or doesn't have to do with his BMI.
I'm tentatively okay with names like "Mayor Quimby", "Mayor Double-down", "Mayor Farley" and "Mayor Cartman" because I've heard those all justified with reference to similarities of character beyond coincidences of shape. I have no intention of using any of them myself, but I won't automatically step in when others do. I am not okay with "Fat Fuck", because I don't want to associate two such lovely concepts as "fat" and "fucking" with that kind of reprehensible squawker.
(seriously though, Toronto. This guy? REALLY?)
*citation needed
Cross-posted from Dreamwidth, where there are currently
comments. Please comment there using OpenID.
Speaking of failure, the city of Toronto dropped the ball hard last night. According to the CBC, only 53.2% of potential voters actually voted (and that's up from 39% in 2006, ugh, how are so many people so apathetic?), and 47.1% of them voted for the florid windbag.
I shouldn't need to tell you, I'm pretty grievously bummed about this. I'm trying to take comfort in things like knowing that he's only got one vote on the council, and if he never passed a single motion in ten years as a councillor, how much better are his chances now? I'm not cheered up by the fat-bashing. First, the guy has so much going against him (racist, homophobic, anti-immigration, anti-environment, cyclist-hating, wife-beating, drunk-driving, mud-slinging, tantrum-throwing, wannabe-activist-murdering, shit-for-brains, goat-raping* NIMBY liar toad festering like an infected ingrown hair in the ass-crack of the city) . . . is "fat" really the worst thing you can think of to call him? Second, yes, he is fat, we can see that, incorporating it into any of the epithets we use to describe him is really unnecessary. THIRD AND MOST IMPORTANTLY: what does it matter if he is fat? "Fat" is not a moral condition; we should not ever mistake its presence or absence for evidence on which to build a moral judgment. The fact that he is a grotesque parody of a human being has nothing to do with the fact that he is fat. Even the people who say "well, he's fat, he'll probably have a heart attack and die before he gets the chance to do much damage"--I'm sorry, but fuck right off with that noise, size and cardiac health really do not correlate as smoothly as you'd like to imagine. He might be unhealthy, heartwise, and that could have as much or more to do with genetic predisposition or the fact that he is EVIL AND WHOLLY DEVOID OF COMPASSION as it does or doesn't have to do with his BMI.
I'm tentatively okay with names like "Mayor Quimby", "Mayor Double-down", "Mayor Farley" and "Mayor Cartman" because I've heard those all justified with reference to similarities of character beyond coincidences of shape. I have no intention of using any of them myself, but I won't automatically step in when others do. I am not okay with "Fat Fuck", because I don't want to associate two such lovely concepts as "fat" and "fucking" with that kind of reprehensible squawker.
(seriously though, Toronto. This guy? REALLY?)
*citation needed
Cross-posted from Dreamwidth, where there are currently
comments. Please comment there using OpenID.