> On 2017-09-28 9:08 PM, Quinn C wrote:
>> * Wayne Brown:
>>> On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 13:49:49 in article <***@mid.crommatograph.info> Quinn C <***@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>>> * Wayne Brown:
>>>>> On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 11:54:10 in article <firstname.lastname@example.org> Quinn C <***@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>>>>> * Mack A. Damia:
>>>>>>> I detest this commercial. What does that even mean?
>>>>>> As others have said, "being all about X" is overused these days. I
>>>>>> find it mildly annoying, a little less than e.g. "best X ever", a
>>>>>> verdict that may easily last hours.
>>>>>>> Not only that, a woman with a bad case of vocal fry says it at the
>>>>>>> beginning of the commercial. I abhor vocal fry.
>>>>>> I hope you're not one of those apparently many people who abhor
>>>>>> vocal fry specifically in women, and often don't even notice it in
>>>>> How would we know we are one of those if we don't notice it?
>>>> Well, now that I pointed out this possibility, you could pay more
>>>> attention and find out.
>>>>> But in
>>>>> any case, what would be wrong with that?
>>>> You may not have noticed, but there was a whole conversation on
>>>> about how women who speak in public, whether they are TV and radio
>>>> personalities, politicians, YouTubers or podcasters, get
>>>> criticized for their voices much more often than men. Sometimes
>>>> they get criticized for things that are more typical for female
>>>> voices - like being "shrill" -, but sometimes for things that
>>>> aren't gender-specific, like vocal fry, for which men don't get
>>>> There is a suspicion that at least part of this imbalance is due
>>>> to listeners being uncomfortable with women voicing opinions in
>>> I missed that other discussion, which is probably just as well.
>>> In recent years I've grown quite weary of and unsympathetic to claims
>>> of bias due to things like "listeners being uncomfortable with women
>>> voicing opinions in public."
>> Weary - I totally understand. Even more I'm weary that there is
>> still reason to have such suspicions, even thought it's often
>> difficult to prove them in specific cases, which makes these
>> discussions so unpleasant.
>>>>> The sounds would presumably
>>>>> be different so I could imagine some liking one sound but abhoring
>>>>> the other.
>>>> Like liking men wearing pants, but abhorring women who do so?
>>>> These judgments are not always purely aesthetic.
>>> Women wearing pants doesn't bother me. And I certainly don't approve
>>> of abhorring women for that (or any other) reason. Abhoring people
>>> in general is not wise, much less for so inconsequential a reason. But
>>> I don't have a problem with someone abhorring the _practice_ of women
>>> wearing pants. They have the right to their opinions.
>> Sure - in fact, I find that a rather bland thing to say. I also
>> have the right to point out they're being sexist - not as an
>> opinion, but rather by definition - and that therefore I'd be
>> hesitant having any dealings with them.
> Logically, if you're not going to have any dealings with people who have
> certain opinions, you shouldn't be communicating with them at all, not
> even to point out your reasons for excluding them.
I'm not sure logic is the best approach to this question, but
while we're there, I'd like to point out that I didn't say "point
out to them". In fact, I was pointing out to Wayne that those
people are sexist, in order to tell Wayne that "having a right to
one's opinion" isn't the most relevant question to me.
You have the right to your opinion, but some opinions are wrong,
and some are despicable, either to me personally, or, in my view,
detrimental to society and should therefore be met with
Apart from that, in the practical world, it is a likely scenario
that I already have dealings with people and then I find out that
they're sexist (or racist etc.), and then it might be useful to
indicate to them that's the reason I'm uncomfortable, and don't
feel like pursuing the relationship further.
But this wouldn't be automatic either, so it would be better to
say that this point has the potential to be the principal reason
for me avoiding a person.
> I think I've finally figured out what "vocal fry' is, and I can't say it
> bothers me all that much.
I recently watched the first season of Master of None. In Episode
5, there is a scene where the hero is about to have sex with a
woman, but retreats when he finds out she's married. In this very
awkward situation, I noticed lot of vocal fry from both
participants. Around 9:30 min, for people who have access to it
> What does annoy me is the high-pitched squeal
> of excitement some women feel impelled to produce when they see a
> friend, or spot something good on sale. I think it's a generational
> thing; women much younger than me seem to be far more likely to do it
> than women of my own age are. I think it must have been thought of as
> cute when they were little girls, and they never got out of the habit.
> That's far more annoying than vocal fry.
I wouldn't have thought that's the reason. It seems to be
something that's cultivated in pop culture, and I expect most
people are copying it from there, but there's still the question
why it arose in pop culture in the first place, and
infantilization is a possibility. Growing up has become more and
more unpopular over the last decades.
Software is getting slower
more rapidly than hardware becomes faster