![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
I am a member of 3 cliques of size 8
deoridhe,
animeg,
r0n1n,
s1ncer1ty,
fuzzyfruit,
learan,
kalla,
shingan
atpolittlebit,
restriction,
crantz,
eljuno,
enough_space,
backfromspace,
deoridhe,
shoiryu
shoiryu,
restriction,
crantz,
eljuno,
backfromspace,
hugsnkisses_,
deoridhe,
enough_space
Also, I have to share. This man's snark is impressive and amazing, and the target is about as well defended as a pillow fort at a Viking Raid.
Through Buck's eyes, we learn that this story takes place in the proverbial "not-so-distant future," in a world very much like our own. Only a few, minor details have been fictionalized for the sake of the novel. I've noticed four so far in the book:
1. In Left Behind, our Newsweek magazine is replaced with its fictional counterpart, Global Weekly.
2. Rayford and Hattie work for a fictionalized American-based airline, called "Pan-Continental."
3. While in our world the Concorde has ceased making commercial flights, it's still flying in the pages of Left Behind.
4. There's a miracle formula that turns desert sand into fertile soil; the world's economy has been transformed so that agriculture is more lucrative than high-tech industry; Israel has made peace and lasting friendship with the Palestinians and all her Arab neighbors, who have happily ceded their territory and sovereignty; Russia has formed an alliance with Ethiopia -- now a feared nuclear power -- and launched tens of thousands of warheads at otherwise tranquil, peaceful Israel, but all of the missiles are destroyed harmlessly in a blatant act of divine intervention, providing such overwhelming, incontrovertible evidence of God's existence that everyone is forced to ignore it.
But, you know, except for little details like that, this world is exactly like our own. It's uncanny.
Weight Rant (unrequested): This was in response to a question raised about the effect of physical care on magical ability, that lead to an excellent discussion and a wide variety of views and opinions. One person decided to object; I was one of the people who called her out for it. I was subsequently called out by someone else, and this is my response. I think it ties up my opinion on weight fairly well, so I'm reproducing it here.
I found it difficult to believe that the poster and many of the respondants in fact do not have serious bias' against those who are "large".
Even those who are "large"? You seem to assume no one else is, which is easy to do on the internet but ultimately a false assumption. See, when people who are "large" type, the words don't show up any wider.
See, I'm fat. I'm not large, I'm not "big boned," and I'm not ample. I'm fucking fat. My body fat index is 45%. I'm 5'4" and 200 pound. Most of the people I tell that I'm fat are quick to try to salve my ego, but honestly, taking care of my ego won't make me healthier, nor will it make it easier to go up stairs, hike, run, do martial arts, or be physical in any way.
The fact that I'm fat has nothing to do with my worth as a human being. It does, however, have a great impact on what I'm capable of accomplishing. This is just sensible, not biased. It takes me twice as much energy and effort to do the things my lighter friends do, and my endurance is much lower for that. I'm carrying around an extra sixty pounds, you see; that tires a body out.
And, really, I'm not surprised she "expected" a flame war to start. After all, look at how quickly you assumed that I (and others) have a "serious bias" against those who are "large" simply because I dared to criticize someone on the internet.
Other rants to follow soon, don't worry!
no subject
Date: 2005-01-27 08:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-27 08:30 pm (UTC)Not to mention the whole "peacemaker = antichrist" thing. I'm not even going near that particular bit of seriously fucked up in the headness. But that one post about the evangelical Christians speculating if Obama was the antichrist on political_wank makes a whole lot more sense now.
Sorry about the rantys, I need to cool off and have some waffles now.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-28 07:23 am (UTC)I am often annoyed by the reactions people have to weight... it's such a hot-button idea or a sensitive spot for so many people that it's hard for them to divorce their personal axe to grind from a discussion that's more sociologically inclined. I got some of this with my recent statement of "eek, I have to lose weight". Ten thousand "you are fine just the way you are" and such responses. When I said, "No, I'm not", then I got accused of conforming to societal ideals of beauty (ha!), being brainwashed (!), and being biased or hateful towards heavier people. Many of the folks holding this view were really nasty about it, too. My explanation of, "no, I pride myself on being athletic, I *want* to have good muscles and be in the best shape I can" was not accepted. See, it's okay to accept yourself as you want to be if you want to be whatever shape the person you're talking to happens to like. But if you differ from their opinion, clearly there's something wrong with *you*. Grrrr. My body, my rules. If I want to be an Amazon, I will be. Nyah. [grin]
That has *no bearing* on my opinion of other peoples' figures, personalities, or worth as a person. It's as if me wanting to get myself in better shape is somehow insulting to others. I am disbelieved when I say "no, it's nothing to do with you, this is about me". I've dated people who weighed 100 lbs and people who weighed 250 lbs. Clearly I don't find weight to be some scarlet letter.
So yeah, I pretty much agree with your rant.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-29 12:07 am (UTC)