Your unpopular (non-political, non-offensive) opinions!

[pythonmegapixel]

1 hour ago, VirusDumb said:

my opinion is just that if you are just a single guy or don't have kids, you can use motorcycles or mopeds for going to workplaces and supermarkets, as they are usually cheaper than cars, more fuel efficient than cars, and can slip in between cars in traffic jams, so in my opinion they are better than cars (in that particular situation)in my opinion, as for bicycles are only suitable if your workplace is only a few kilometres away, or you're really a proffessional cyclist, otherwise, you'd get tired by the time you get to work, or wont reach in time.

Yes, fair enough. But there are eBikes - which are electrically assisted but not full-on motorcycles - and those get over the tiredness issue.

 

In an ideal world I wouldn't want to live more than a few km from work anyway. Commuting is tedious, bad for mental health, more widely bad for society and the environment, and eats into leisure time. Of course this isn't an ideal world, so for many commuting is a necessity.

 

It is also a matter of personal preference, of course, but arguably not just the preference of the driver/rider, as how people choose to travel has a very significant impact on others as well.

[HanZie82]

Oh and also, kids arent an excuse.

If more ppl commute by bike, its not to hard to get kids on the bike and put their food to good use.
Seriously, to anyone thinking im talking out my *insert some non talking something* check some youtubes about why biking is so nice in the Netherlands.

Kids as young as 6 partake in traffic here, SAFELY!

[IkeaGnome]

Just now, HanZie82 said:

Only if you do mine.

Deal. 78 miles to the airport. 589 mile flight. 25 mile bus ride to the boat. 14 mile boat ride to our port. 5.5 mile bus ride to camp. 711 ish miles each way, or 1145 km. So, 2290 km of biking every 28 days.

 

Like I said, 99.9% shit post.

[HanZie82]

4 minutes ago, IkeaGnome said:

Deal. 78 miles to the airport. 589 mile flight. 25 mile bus ride to the boat. 14 mile boat ride to our port. 5.5 mile bus ride to camp. 711 ish miles each way, or 1145 km. So, 2290 km of biking every 28 days.

*hides*

 

FFS mate, thats not a commute but a trip around the world in 88 days.

 

 

4 minutes ago, IkeaGnome said:

Like I said, 99.9% shit post.

Isnt that what this topic is for?

[IkeaGnome]

Just now, HanZie82 said:

*hides*

 

FFS mate, thats not a commute but a trip around the world in 88 days.

It's about to get longer here this fall when I move. I do work rotations though. 2 weeks working 12 hours all 14 days, then I get 14 days at home with no work. I'll be adding 2 more plane legs to it, and flying through what sounds like your neck of the woods every 2 weeks, and a train ride ahaha.

[pythonmegapixel]

1 hour ago, Bombastinator said:

Situational.  Depends on distances and layout.  Many agree with you though.

Of course it's situational... but the applicability of any mode of transport is situational.

 

Nobody would go to an out of town store, but a sofa and carry it home on a bike. But equally nobody would get in their car to visit their friend just across the street, unless the street is so large they can't actually cross it (which isn't that common for residential streets except in some bits of America).

 

9 minutes ago, HanZie82 said:

Kids as young as 6 partake in traffic here, SAFELY!

To be fair that's because the Netherlands generally puts a lot of effort into making their streets not just efficient but also safe and attractive.

 

I live in the UK and the only time a street gets improved here is if there is a massive flashy project. There no kind of rolling programme to rebuild all streets to make them safer: the closest we get is just putting a new top layer of asphalt down.

 

If anyone proposes putting in cycle paths, modal filters, wider footpaths and so on, there are NIMBYs claiming it will create traffic. No, what's creating traffic is people insisting driving round the corner to buy a pint of milk when it would literally take 5 mins to walk there. Or 2 mins on the new cycle paths.

 

A few city centre places have Dutch-style paths and they are well-used in rush hour. So much so that if everyone on a bike got in a car instead, there would be absolute gridlock.

[Donut417]

3 hours ago, pythonmegapixel said:

n an ideal world I wouldn't want to live more than a few km from work anyway. Commuting is tedious, bad for mental health, more widely bad for society and the environment, and eats into leisure time. Of course this isn't an ideal world, so for many commuting is a necessity.

Id love to live near my job. Its about a 13 mile trip to get from home to work. Unfortunately the area where my employers warehouse is located is a bit on the richer side of things. So housing and apartments not so affordable. The other thing that sucks where I live is we dont have a grocery store. We have a CVS Pharmacy thats a half of step away from going out of business within walking distance or we have a Dollar Generally a bit further. In order to do any grocery shopping we have to travel 10 or so miles to the next city. With the level of groceries we be buying, biking is not an option. 

[Bombastinator]

4 hours ago, HanZie82 said:

Dont ever say that to any Dutch person!!!!

Also electrical bikes.
I dont have any stamina, having one i can easily work 40 miles away and bike there.
 

I think comments like these come from ignorance. Sorry, dont mean to offend, we cant know everything.
But with the right infrastructrure the bycicle is indeed a valid alternative. Also reason why there's so many over here.

 

Specially if you see next picture, even tho very inefficient use of space since most bike storage is 2 levels now.

Just look at how many bikes you can park in the same area as if you would park a car. (also our cars are generally smaller then US variants).

So yeah want to be efficient use a bicycle, want to take up more room then needed, be lazy and stink up the air get a car. i joke. (every means of transport has its cons and its pro's, dismissing just one because you dont know all the pro's and con's it a bit dimm.).

 

Holland is a small country and many of its cities are specifically set up for bicycles.  They make more sense there than some other places.  Motorcycles and bikes also have issues with inclement weather.  Rain on a motorcycle actually hurts and neither are remotely safe on snow.  They’re not even terribly good if the thing is specifically set up for snow though they are better.

[Bombastinator]

2 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Id love to live near my job. Its about a 13 mile trip to get from home to work. Unfortunately the area where my employers warehouse is located is a bit on the richer side of things. So housing and apartments not so affordable. The other thing that sucks where I live is we dont have a grocery store. We have a CVS Pharmacy thats a half of step away from going out of business within walking distance or we have a Dollar Generally a bit further. In order to do any grocery shopping we have to travel 10 or so miles to the next city. With the level of groceries we be buying, biking is not an option. 

It used to be that commuting was a near impossibility.  Then Chicago built elevated trains and suburbs suddenly exploded drastically increasing the size of cities.

[Stormseeker9]

Pickles and peanut butter are delicious 

[VirusDumb]

16 hours ago, pythonmegapixel said:

Yes, fair enough. But there are eBikes - which are electrically assisted but not full-on motorcycles - and those get over the tiredness issue.

 

In an ideal world I wouldn't want to live more than a few km from work anyway. Commuting is tedious, bad for mental health, more widely bad for society and the environment, and eats into leisure time. Of course this isn't an ideal world, so for many commuting is a necessity.

 

It is also a matter of personal preference, of course, but arguably not just the preference of the driver/rider, as how people choose to travel has a very significant impact on others as well.

Unfortunately in India, residential homes and apartments are hardly near offices and an average person spend 10-30 minutes of their day commuting to work.

[VirusDumb]

16 hours ago, HanZie82 said:

Dont ever say that to any Dutch person!!!!

Also electrical bikes.
I dont have any stamina, having one i can easily work 40 miles away and bike there.
 

I think comments like these come from ignorance. Sorry, dont mean to offend, we cant know everything.
But with the right infrastructrure the bycicle is indeed a valid alternative. Also reason why there's so many over here.

 

Specially if you see next picture, even tho very inefficient use of space since most bike storage is 2 levels now.

Just look at how many bikes you can park in the same area as if you would park a car. (also our cars are generally smaller then US variants).

So yeah want to be efficient use a bicycle, want to take up more room then needed, be lazy and stink up the air get a car. i joke. (every means of transport has its cons and its pro's, dismissing just one because you dont know all the pro's and con's it a bit dimm.).

 

Idk man, I ride my bicycle to school and get pretty tired by the time I reach, well here in India residential areas are kilometres away from workplaces and offices, so that's why I think they don't work out, also the road safety in India is lethal, which is a big problem to cyclists as well as motorcyclists

[VirusDumb]

12 hours ago, Donut417 said:

Id love to live near my job. Its about a 13 mile trip to get from home to work. Unfortunately the area where my employers warehouse is located is a bit on the richer side of things. So housing and apartments not so affordable. The other thing that sucks where I live is we dont have a grocery store. We have a CVS Pharmacy thats a half of step away from going out of business within walking distance or we have a Dollar Generally a bit further. In order to do any grocery shopping we have to travel 10 or so miles to the next city. With the level of groceries we be buying, biking is not an option. 

Similar situations here with most people in India, I was saying in these kind of situations+ given that the weather isn't that harsh, motorcycles are better option than cars

[IPD]

12 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

Holland is a small country and many of its cities are specifically set up for bicycles.  They make more sense there than some other places.  Motorcycles and bikes also have issues with inclement weather.  Rain on a motorcycle actually hurts and neither are remotely safe on snow.  They’re not even terribly good if the thing is specifically set up for snow though they are better.

Holland isn't a country.  Moreover, North Holland and South Holland are different provinces--both within Nederland.

 

Know how I know you never watched "WITWICS" on PBS when you were a kid?

[Donut417]

17 minutes ago, VirusDumb said:

motorcycles are better option than cars

Roads are too shit around these parts for motorcycles. Considering when the people demand the roads be repaired the government sends a guy out who basically throws cold patch in a hole and thats about it. People then proceed to drive over that patch, removing it from the hole. 

[VirusDumb]

4 hours ago, Donut417 said:

Roads are too shit around these parts for motorcycles. Considering when the people demand the roads be repaired the government sends a guy out who basically throws cold patch in a hole and thats about it. People then proceed to drive over that patch, removing it from the hole. 

Ever been on Indian roads? cuz the thing you described as shit, is bliss for Indian motorcyclists, (man I remember watching a moto vlogger who gave names to potholes which he used to ride over, the man had like an emotional attachment with those 3 potholes, when the road was fixed, he instaed of being happy that the road is smoother becomes sad as he'll miss the potholes now)

[Bombastinator]

10 hours ago, IPD said:

Holland isn't a country.  Moreover, North Holland and South Holland are different provinces--both within Nederland.

 

Know how I know you never watched "WITWICS" on PBS when you were a kid?

“The Netherlands” then.  You know what I mean.  I wrote sorry first then I erased it.  Because I’m not.  While not incorrect it is a very narrow point that does not affect the substance of the statement.

Edited April 14, 2022 by Bombastinator

[IPD]

52 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

“The Netherlands” then.  You know what I mean.  I wrote sorry first then I erased it.  Because I’m not.  While not incorrect it is a very narrow point that does not affect the substance of the statement.

No, it just makes you look like an arrogant American who expects others to understand his own country--while not bothering to even understand the basics of theirs.

 

P.S.

The world needs to outlaw exonyms entirely.

[Bombastinator]

3 hours ago, IPD said:

No, it just makes you look like an arrogant American who expects others to understand his own country--while not bothering to even understand the basics of theirs.

 

P.S.

The world needs to outlaw exonyms entirely.

Whichever.  Still doesn’t affect the point.  Be huffy if you want to.  

[VirusDumb]

12 hours ago, IPD said:

 

P.S.

The world needs to outlaw exonyms entirely.

It's hard for me to correctly pronounce "Deutschland" in my accent

[IPD]

1 hour ago, VirusDumb said:

It's hard for me to correctly pronounce "Deutschland" in my accent

I view that as universally symptomatic of why exonyms have become standard-fare.  Had this been socially normative, the effort to develop the articulative ability within every other linguistic base--would have been a foregone conclusion.

 

I myself struggle (at times) with the correct enunciation of "Belgie" and "Norge" among others.  And I forget to use "Nippon" almost every time.  I endeavor to get better at the process.

 

It may sound trite, but when you start looking at the exonyms used by other countries--you start to get a feel for how ridiculous it is to use them.  We may call "France" France in English...but "Auf Deutsch" it is "Frankreich".  How ridiculous would it be to have that be the most common nomenclature by which people referred to the country?

 

India is kind of a grey area, given that there are also historically accurate terms of "Bharata" and "Hindustan".  Many other quirky nomenclature anomalies exist.  To me, it is important to give the native people the direct say--as I am a firm believer that words matter.  The battle over lexicon is how wars can ultimately be won or lost; and in order to prevent misrepresentation of a distinct culture--I think we have to start at with the basics via endonym.

 

Other examples of where the lexicon can be perverted to obfuscate or change meaning:

 

"Neutralized" instead of "Killed"  -softens the impact of deaths inflicted

"Climate Change" instead "Global Warming" - so that those sounding the alarms cannot be wrong no matter how temperature changes

"Minor attracted persons" instead of "Pedophile" - in order to soften the depravity of these individuals

"Right wing" or "left wing" monikers attached to any action/group--in order to carte-blanche derogate it as fringe, blasphemous, etc

 

Many, many other examples exist.

[Bombastinator]

1 hour ago, IPD said:

I view that as universally symptomatic of why exonyms have become standard-fare.  Had this been socially normative, the effort to develop the articulative ability within every other linguistic base--would have been a foregone conclusion.

 

I myself struggle (at times) with the correct enunciation of "Belgie" and "Norge" among others.  And I forget to use "Nippon" almost every time.  I endeavor to get better at the process.

 

It may sound trite, but when you start looking at the exonyms used by other countries--you start to get a feel for how ridiculous it is to use them.  We may call "France" France in English...but "Auf Deutsch" it is "Frankreich".  How ridiculous would it be to have that be the most common nomenclature by which people referred to the country?

 

India is kind of a grey area, given that there are also historically accurate terms of "Bharata" and "Hindustan".  Many other quirky nomenclature anomalies exist.  To me, it is important to give the native people the direct say--as I am a firm believer that words matter.  The battle over lexicon is how wars can ultimately be won or lost; and in order to prevent misrepresentation of a distinct culture--I think we have to start at with the basics via endonym.

 

Other examples of where the lexicon can be perverted to obfuscate or change meaning:

 

"Neutralized" instead of "Killed"  -softens the impact of deaths inflicted

"Climate Change" instead "Global Warming" - so that those sounding the alarms cannot be wrong no matter how temperature changes

"Minor attracted persons" instead of "Pedophile" - in order to soften the depravity of these individuals

"Right wing" or "left wing" monikers attached to any action/group--in order to carte-blanche derogate it as fringe, blasphemous, etc

 

Many, many other examples exist.

Part of the reason “perverted lexicon”s exist i think is because there is often difficulty agreeing as to whether they are inaccurate or not and if not in what way.  I for example agree with a few of your definitions, but find others either incorrect or possessing skewed reasoning as to  the reason behind the phrase change. 

 

Example of agreement:

I’ve never even heard “minor attracted persons” before.  It strikes me as silly because that’s literally what the term pedophile means. Pedo=young, Phile=attraction.  “Pedophile” is someone engaging in pedophillia which has history and baggage.  The term seems to be an attempt to shed that baggage, which I feel is a disservice to the listener as the danger such people represent has been learned historically which is why the baggage exists. 
 

Example of incorrect;
“neutralized” isn’t a replacement for killed, it’s sometimes misused as a replacement for “casualty” which is still incorrect.   A Casualty is a person is rendered unable to fight, but not necessarily killed. So “killed” or “wounded”.  “Neutralized” is even more vague, including combatants who for example could not enter theatre to fight or who’s weapons are rendered ineffective.  One could say for example that  The Russian EW capability, which is based on massive radio jamming systems, sort of massive ground based wild weasels, was neutralized by Russia’s own actions. Killed combatants are neutralized but not all neutralized combatants are killed or even wounded.

example of skewed:

right and left wing were originally British terms alluding to seating arrangements in the House of Commons.  I think the replacement term “liberal” or “conservative” could be considered inaccurate and are skewed lexicon, as that is not the original meaning of the words, but “right” or “left” wing is not a minimizer, and is not applied to all legislation.  Just a lot of it.  It is a phrase with a continuum.  It isn’t binary. This seems to me to be an attempt to substitute “far right” or “far left” with “right” and “left” and then imply the terminology is meaningless.

Edited April 15, 2022 by Bombastinator

[VirusDumb]

1 hour ago, IPD said:

India is kind of a grey area, given that there are also historically accurate terms of "Bharata" and "Hindustan".  Many other quirky nomenclature anomalies exist. 

It's not "Bharata", it's "Bharat" there's no a in the end, it's just भारत, Bharata sounds like भरता, which is a dish made from eggplants, and many foreigners pronounce the country as the dish, which would be considered inappropriate and insulting if done in India, and yes there are 3 terms for India and even the natives use them interchangeably, and there are over 22 languages in India and people in India have different accents from one region to another, so "India"(इंडिया) is the most common name used along side "Bharat" which originates from the Sanskrit word for India "भारतवर्ष" and then "Hindustan" (हिन्दुस्तान), is also used by natives, it means "Hindu's land" which is kind of wrong and non inclusive since India is a secular country but yes, people still use it.

 

So I'd say it's better to use the term which is easy to not mispronounce than make a fool out of yourself by calling a country an eggplant dish

[HanZie82]

15 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

“The Netherlands” then.  You know what I mean.  I wrote sorry first then I erased it.  Because I’m not.  While not incorrect it is a very narrow point that does not affect the substance of the statement.

As im from the Netherlands and not Holland, yeah it matters.

Using Holland as a name for the country is just incorrect. Thats like calling the USA, Texas. ^{(altho im sure many Texans wouldnt mind hehehe).}

But then again even lot of Dutch don't even get it right, so the confusion is very understandable.

[Bombastinator]

Just now, VirusDumb said:

It's not "Bharata", it's "Bharat" there's no a in the end, it's just भारत, Bharata sounds like भरता, which is a dish made from eggplants, and many foreigners pronounce the country as the dish, which would be considered inappropriate and insulting if done in India, and yes there are 3 terms for India and even the natives use them interchangeably, and there are over 22 languages in India and people in India have different accents from one region to another, so "India"(इंडिया) is the most common name used along side "Bharat" which originates from the Sanskrit word for India "भारतवर्ष" and then "Hindustan" (हिन्दुस्तान), is also used by natives, it means "Hindu's land" which is kind of wrong and non inclusive since India is a secular country but yes, people still use it.

 

So I'd say it's better to use the term which is easy to not mispronounce than make a fool out of yourself by calling a country an eggplant dish

This is a common issue with foreign languages.  Pictched languages such as Chinese have even greater problems as many words change meaning drastically depending on pitch.  One word for example, can be the color white, mother-in-law or marijuana depending on pitch. An example I personally ran afoul of is in German there is a familiar and formal case.  The familiar case is almost never used outside of family groups, but it is the one most often taught in language programs due to a German convention to use it amongst students. The result is they can become confused and unintended offense given by their use.