I really hope that I can do something else now that I've at least gotten the basics out of my head. I'll probably have to go back and finish it later.

I suppose it makes sense, in some weird way, that it'd be one of the few things that still annoys me. The average person knows more about Dwarf Blue Sheep than they do about common law Marriage. If they'd just have the fucking sense to not talk about it the way they don't talk about the Dwarf Blue Sheep, though....

I guess that's my real issue -- that people talk about shit they barely know. The fact that you know the phrase 'common law Marriage' does not make you an expert. And I doubt that you know someone it happened to any more than you know someone who was related to someone who went to the hospital with roach-infested tonsils after eating at Taco Bell. Because that shit didn't happen. You don't accidentally get married anywhere -- except, maybe, Las Vegas. And getting so drunk you don't know what you're doing, and waking up married to someone you don't know is not 'common law'. Because Nevada isn't on the list.

What list? Why, the list of states that allow common law marriages. And, hey, here it is:

• Alabama
• Colorado
• District of Columbia
• Iowa
• Kansas
• Montana
• Rhode Island
• South Carolina
• Texas
• Utah

Now, before you try to claim that the list is incomplete -- it's not. It's just a list of states that currently [as far as I know] allow for the formation of common law marriages. In Georgia, it's only valid if it was formed prior to January 1st, 1997; Idaho, 1996; Ohio prior to October 10th; Pennsylvania before 2005. Oklahoma's got some legal conflicts that make it unclear as to whether or not a common law marriage can be legally formed after November 1st, 1998, and New Hampshire allows them, but only for inheritance purposes.

So that's...what, ten states? Out of fifty. Sure, ten states that people have been known to live in -- and with other people, even, but that doesn't mean you've got anything to worry about. Or that I've got anything to worry about.

You might be wondering why this bugs me so much. Since you're actually putting up with this, I guess I owe you an explanation. Okay....

Surprising as it may be, this actually has very little to do with the-ex-that-tried-to-sue-for-divorce, except that she's part of the problem -- the problem being the ignorant fucking masses. It's surprising how many people think that living together for six months makes you married. Or, hell, seven years. Because seven, it's a powerfully magical number, innit? Where the fuck did that idea come from?

I should've posted about this a year ago, or whenever it was when I figured out that I'd been living with Gremlin for seven years, because that's what started all this again. A bunch of people who did more talking than reading assuring me that seven years means married. No, it doesn't. Not seven years, not six or a dozen or two decades, either. It doesn't work that way. There is no magic number defined by any of those states [that I'm currently aware of] that instantly turns two people into husband and wife.

That's not to say there aren't requirements, because there are. The short version is that the couple have to represent themselves as husband and wife, and have a reputation in the community as husband and wife. It also helps if they agree to it, and intend to be legally married at some point in the future. There's also occasionally mention of 'cohabitation' and 'consummation', which, I suppose, makes sense. Living together and having sex are something that married people sometimes do. And, hey, maybe I can see where some people might think that gaining a reputation as 'married' might be easy, if a bunch of people see you living together, assume you're having sex, and jump directly to 'married' because they can't allow themselves to think otherwise. But...it's still not that easy. It's not that...accidental.

Because people don't accidentally file joint tax returns, or tell their employers, their insurance companies, and everyone else that they've got this spouse when they don't. Except, I suppose, they sometimes do. And they probably get caught. Because, in some states, that's less 'common law' and more 'fraud'. So, just don't do it.

I'd like to say more on the subject, but it seems that I have stuff to do. I'll try to get a little less opinioney and a little more referencey later....

Ableist.

At first, I was very nearly offended by the word because I thought it was another term, like 'differently abled' or 'handicapable'. Then I found out what it meant, and I was just annoyed.

Lemme lay out a little context here:

Post Subject: We can ban science from schools now
Posted By: Gremlin

I know there are teachers in general around here; at least one teaches some form of science, right?

This idiot was likely graduated from some form of public school: http://gotards.com/Multiple_head_wounds

Posted By: LisaDroesdov

You know, I'm new here and have no social equity whatsoever, so you'll probably not take much stock in my opinion, but Dave Hingsburger has a message I consider important: http://davehingsburger.blogspot.com/200 ... -girl.html

Yeah, I know speaking up and saying something hurtful isn't amusing is not really cool on the internet, but I'm just no fun that way.

Posted By: tandabat

Yes, I teach science, but I've long since given up arguing with such people. On either side. It is a pointless argument. Much like "uh huh" "nuh huh".

And that guy probably didn't do public school. It is much more likely that it was a private school or homeschool. Seriously.

And Lisa, give it up. I had a sister with Downs, got beaten up in Middle school for standing up for that exact word and have decided that if I can have fire retardant clothes, you can be mentally retardant as well.

Yes, I'm feeling a little snarky today. Don't care.

Posted By: Gremlin
About the argument: the question was never really whether X was factual, mythical, or whatever; it was whether fact can now mean sounds good to me, kinda like the layman's misunderstanding of theory has demoted the definition to silly guess.

About gotards.com: I'd predicted a bit of an outcry, and wrote a disclaimer about it; I apparently just never made it an obvious link from the rest of the site: http://why.gotards.com

[In the interest of full disclosure: I've left out a couple of posts that contained a side-discussion about chat]

Posted By: LisaDroesdov

I know it's a losing battle to try to educate people who think hate speech isn't bothersome, but there is a big difference between correctly applying the term "mental retardation" and using the word "retard" as an insult. Would a disclaimer be reason enough to excuse a website full of tales of stupid people being called "GoNiggers?" Really, pick up a dictionary. There are many insults available that aren't still used daily to cause hurt to people who are among the most vulnerable in society. Brent Martin's murderers (google brent martin black armband campaign) used similar ableist epithets to excuse their homicidal actions. Tanda, why should I give up on what's RIGHT, simply because it's not popular? I don't need to stfu about something I consider hateful and ignorant (see? Ignorant- an insult both accurate and free of hate speech connotations!) just because you gave up on sticking up for your sister. I'm sorry that you no longer consider helping your sister defend herself from ableism a worthy cause.

And Gremlin, while I do believe you have the best intentions, and I adore Josh Blue (and have met him and his funny pervy PA a few times) who continually pokes fun at his disability, there is a big difference between running the website name by a few people with physical disabilities and actually asking someone with an intellectual disability who's had that word used hatefully towards them if it bothers them.

Reclamation of language does happen- see: Queer. But it should start with the people who were hurt by those words. When people with intellectual disabilities start wearing "retard" as a badge of honor, fab. Until then, news flash: Some people on the internet actually aren't soulless shells like you find on 4chan.

Anyway, it's been fun, guys, but I figured out what I wanted to know- there's nowhere in town right now to take my curious coworker to see y'all do Rocky Horror- so, peace, love, and thanks for all the fish.

Posted By: Chewy

Lisa, there is one thing you have to understand about many of the people here (especially Grem), and that is Political Correctness isn't common place on this forum. There are many people out there who want the words Fag, Retard, Nigger, Spick, Redneck, Chink, etc... banned because they 'offend' people, we aren't those people. We have plenty of all that come here, and to our show, and we aren't going to do much (if any) censorship here. It's cool that you won't use 'retard' to describe anyone who isn't mentally handicapped, but frankly there are many of us around here that would, and do.

If you are looking for political correctness, this is definately the wrong place to look.

Keep in touch with us on here, we will hopefully have a home soon, k?

Posted By: tandabat

LisaDroesdov wrote:
I'm sorry that you no longer consider helping your sister defend herself from ableism a worthy cause.

Yeah well, it's hard to defend someone that's DEAD.

...hmm...yup, still snarky. Still don't care.

Posted By: Gebus Krost

"It's not the word itself, but the censorship of the word that gives it its power."
--Lenny Bruce

Posted By: Gremlin
LisaDroesdov wrote:
Really, pick up a dictionary. There are many insults available that aren't still used daily to cause hurt to people who are among the most vulnerable in society. Brent Martin's murderers (google brent martin black armband campaign) used similar ableist epithets to excuse their homicidal actions.

If you think you know an English word I'm not aware of: hit me.

If you think that calling someone a 'tard is tantamount to waging some halfassed genocide, then you've got a point: 'tard isn't a strong enough word.

LisaDroesdov wrote:
there is a big difference between running the website name by a few people with physical disabilities and actually asking someone with an intellectual disability who's had that word used hatefully towards them if it bothers them.

I'll grant that I didn't build a focusgroup of people with IQs of twenty to ask whether they regarded ableist epithets as opprobriums; I guess I'm not evil enough to hit 'tards with concepts that advanced, just to prove a point.

Posted By: Annie
wow. I've never seen one of these posts degenerate quite so quickly.

Let me say something overused, but still apt: arguing on the internet is like being in the special Olympics. even if you win, you're still retarded.

And my addendum: Arguing with gremlin is like signing retards up for the normal Olympics. You can not win, and you're still retarded.

So, I've got this new word. 'Ableist'. As it turns out, it means the same thing as my other new word for the day -- 'disableist'. And the words come with a bonus fight over which word should be used...but I don't really care about that right now.

What I care about is the word, and what it means. And the stupidity.

First, the word....

Ableist -- and 'disableist', apparently -- means 'a person who discriminates against people with disabilites'.

...which is kinda stupid. Two different words, meaning the same thing? I'd argue that an 'ableist' would be, say, a person in a wheelchair, or a blind person, who discriminates against people who can walk, or can see. But that's just what would make sense to me. Because they really are two different words.

On the subject of different words, there's LisaDroesdov's posts.

Posted By: LisaDroesdov

You know, I'm new here and have no social equity whatsoever, so you'll probably not take much stock in my opinion, but Dave Hingsburger has a message I consider important: http://davehingsburger.blogspot.com/200 ... -girl.html

Yeah, I know speaking up and saying something hurtful isn't amusing is not really cool on the internet, but I'm just no fun that way.

Social equity has very little to do with how much anothers' opinions are worth. Especially when anothers' opinions are being supported by an article about the word 'retard', not 'gotard'.

...and especially when that article is all full of the word 'retard' being censored like 'fuck' and 'shit'. Which, I'll admit, bugs me. It's as if a person assumes that the reader is too...deficient – perhaps even too differently abled -- to handle the word, so they have to protect the reader from it by misspelling it, or blocking out certain letters.

Hey, don't we have a word for that?

Posted By: LisaDroesdov

I know it's a losing battle to try to educate people who think hate speech isn't bothersome,

Assuming what others think is...not good. I don't remember seeing anyone in that thread saying anything about hate speech, let alone 'hate speech isn't bothersome'. Given that 'hate speech' is speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, class, occupation, or political views, I don't see why the term is being flung into this conversation...except maybe to evoke a desired emotional response.

but there is a big difference between correctly applying the term "mental retardation" and using the word "retard" as an insult.

And there's a big difference between 'retard' and 'gotard'.

Would a disclaimer be reason enough to excuse a website full of tales of stupid people being called "GoNiggers?"

Actually, yes, it would. But you've completely missed something here. Like the fact that 'gotard' is a word. 'Goniggers' is not. The website is not 'Go! Tards!' or anything of the sort, it's 'gotards'.

I suppose that expecting a person to understand this after it's already been explained to them a number of times is 'ableist' somehow. Or perhaps 'ignorantist'. Maybe I do discriminate against people who willfully remain ignorant of some things.

Really, pick up a dictionary. There are many insults available that aren't still used daily to cause hurt to people who are among the most vulnerable in society.

Wait, what?

So it's okay to use an insult, as long as it's not meant to hurt this specific group of people?

Brent Martin's murderers (google brent martin black armband campaign) used similar ableist epithets to excuse their homicidal actions.

Is this a stock phrase that all activists are issued to defend their position? Seriously, I can change a few words, and make it look like Jack Thompson said this....

Tanda, why should I give up on what's RIGHT, simply because it's not popular? I don't need to stfu about something I consider hateful and ignorant (see? Ignorant- an insult both accurate and free of hate speech connotations!) just because you gave up on sticking up for your sister. I'm sorry that you no longer consider helping your sister defend herself from ableism a worthy cause.

Yes, I see now. So hate speech is okay so long as it's hate speech you agree with. The ignorant are people, too!

Or maybe not. Nevermind. The ignorant aren't people. You fucking ignorant cow.

...wait, no, that's hateful toward cows, isn't it? Maybe I should just censor everything – except, no. Then I might offend someone who can somehow find words in the random pattern of characters I type out.

See, the problem with this sort of soft censorship is that it really is a slippery slope. By-and-by, there's nothing left that's safe to say, and there's naught to be done about it.

Personally, I would prefer that people become a bit thicker skinned. The words have no power when you're not afraid of them. An unloaded gun can still be used to club someone to death, but a word that's no longer feared is just a word.

Trite, but true.

And Gremlin, while I do believe you have the best intentions, and I adore Josh Blue (and have met him and his funny pervy PA a few times) who continually pokes fun at his disability, there is a big difference between running the website name by a few people with physical disabilities and actually asking someone with an intellectual disability who's had that word used hatefully towards them if it bothers them.

Gremlin? Having the best intentions? Ha.

And way to go on that whole belittling the experiences of david_darkeyes.

Oh, wait, I read that wrong. 'If it bothers them.' Yes, I suppose one should stack their research group with people who are biased. Wait, no, that's wrong, isn't it?

Reclamation of language does happen- see: Queer. But it should start with the people who were hurt by those words.

I've known gotards who've called themselves gotards. And I've known queers who are offended by the term 'queer'. So perhaps Lisa here should stop flinging the word 'queer' around with such impunity....

When people with intellectual disabilities start wearing "retard" as a badge of honor, fab.

Which is why nobody's offended by 'nigger' now. Oh, wait....

Until then, news flash: Some people on the internet actually aren't soulless shells like you find on 4chan.

Newsflash: people on 4chan aren't soulless shells. How channist of you. Or would that be 'soulist'.

I think that there are a lot of disabled people out there who would be offended by this shit. To me, the idea that the world needs to be more 'inclusive' because people are 'different' is far more insulting than a couple of words. Especially since it's all about the people who can't walk, see, or hear. Apparently, not being able to, say, stand the sunlight isn't a 'disability'. I suppose it's all just general teenaged silliness, and it's just fine to not accomodate that minor handful of people, right? And then there's the people with mental health issues – agoraphobes and people with panic disorders. I don't see a lot of rushing around to accomodate them, either. So this whole ableism thing? It's a little more offensive than a word – especially this word that this individual obviously misunderstood.

What's a word for someone who doesn't like stupid, emotional twits who are so guilt-ridden by their lack of disability that they have to lash out and pretend that their patronizing bullshit is somehow less hurtful overall than a few words? We need a word for that, because I feel like I deserve to have a name to be called when I come down against these individuals.

And if you think I don't deserve one, then you're just a wordist.

Anyway, junkmail:

I've actually gotten about five of six of these since the middle of last year. The first few had pictures of women all over them, but they were all roughly the same as this. And kinda scary, in that 'you're in serious trouble now' sort of way. Why?

Voter Registration Laws REQUIRE me to submit this official application. It was worded so badly it actually convinced me that I was violating a LAW by not being registered. And they have my address. They know where I am. Pretty soon, the cops will be by to arrest me for not registering.

Except...I don't have to register. It's optional, isn't it? So why this scary, scary wording?

And why, if the return postage has been paid for by the Scare People Into Registering Center, do I have to place a stamp there....

(19:17:22) dvswraith: Where do you guys hang out in chatrooms these days?
(19:30:00) dvswraith: Are you trying to tell me that you are SO busy, you can't talk to an old, "kinda-friend"?
(19:52:29) dvswraith: Hey, since moving to Arizona, I've met a legitimate man that could give "Pandemic" a possible booste to printing with little, or NO cost to you. He's got "alot of irons in the fire", but that's what he does. If even slightly interested, my email addy is dvswraith@yahoo.com. Let me know, I have no intention other than knowing a good story is told.
(20:02:51) dvswraith: I forget the word.....(regrettably being a writer myself), but this man....supports "long shots", because he's rich. YOU, to some degree, know me Hunter. I'm not full of shit, just checking to see if you're interested. If not, then buy all means, tell me to "fuck off".
(20:08:20) dvswraith has buzzed you!
(20:09:43) dvswraith: I know you hate being contacted DIRECTLY, but this is special this time Hunter.
(20:11:41) dvswraith: I'd contact your man, but he never responds to his fans....a fairly, big failing, if you ask me, or any of his fans....

Terribly annoying. Especially since the buzzing started as I sat down to start writing that review. And the messages kept coming. And ooh, a jab at Gremlin, and how all his 'fans' keep complaining to...yeah, right. Whatever. So I formed a terse reply, and an attempted brushoff [I really was hoping he'd try to IM Stephen King]. Which led to a whole bunch of interruptions. I should've known better.

(20:12:12) evilcoffeechick: It's especially annoying when people act offended when I don't reply because I happen to be at least a mile away from my computer at the time. It's Paroxysm, not Pandemic. It's here. And you could've found this out by hitting the board instead of messaging me.
(20:12:31) evilcoffeechick: Complain to Stephen King. He doesn't IM either.
(20:13:47) dvswraith: He changed the name of it, since I received the first chapter a yeat ago, my BAD forgive me.
(20:14:00) evilcoffeechick: Announced on the board still.
(20:15:01) dvswraith: Honestly, I haven't visited his board either in several months...
(20:18:50) dvswraith: I'm not just another "scab" that IMs's you guys. Now, knowing how the internet can be...I understand being on your guard....I'm not looking to steal anything, as I know I couldn't, honestly...I'm looking to possibly help be a part of something, that could be SOMETHING.
(20:25:43) evilcoffeechick: The board's here: http://gremlin.net/bb/index.php -- there are other new book previews posted. And it's an all 'round better way to interact, since it doesn't require instantaneousness, or even presence. As far as some guy who funds 'long shots' because he's rich, it sounds an awful lot like a personal Publish America, but hey, if someone wants to pass a copy along, that's none of my business. I have a movie rewview to write now, though, while it's still painfully fresh.
(20:31:04) dvswraith: Hope you make you make a shit-load of money on your review Hunter.<p

Update: This was waiting for me when I woke up...yesterday.

(14:21:48) dvswraith: Hey Hunter, sorry about last night, I think, perhaps I came off on the wrong page. I was just trying to see what I could do to help you, and Grem, and I see now that I was little behind the times as far as what's happened thus far with his work. My bad.

Somehow, I don't think this is actually worth anything more than the standard e-apology. There's no mention of checking anything in the future instead of going off on 'I'm taking your lack of response personally because I know you're sitting right there I can see you!' fits.