writing

Song copyrights 1

This entry was posted in Commentary Music and tagged copyright music writing on by

Reports about a copyright lawsuit by Ed Townsend’s estate against Ed Sheeran recently caught my attention. The suit claims that Sheeran’s song “Thinking Out Loud” infringes on “Let’s Get It On,” usually attributed to Marvin Gaye but co-authored by Townsend. The claim was that Sheeran improperly used “harmonic progressions” and “melodic and rhythmic elements” from the earlier song, but a federal court has ruled there was no copyright violation. That got me thinking about the whole issue of song copyrights.

To start by making my own views clear, I’m in favor of copyright. Some libertarians argue that creative works aren’t tangible objects and thus shouldn’t be subject to property rights, but I think the concept of ownership is as applicable to creations of the mind as to physical creations. Copyright prevents one person (or corporation) from taking someone else’s creation and profiting without getting consent or offering compensation. I think 95-year copyrights are inappropriate, but living creators should enjoy protection against the appropriation of their work.
(more…)

“Hate speech”: an anti-concept

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged language writing on by

The first time I ran into the term “hate speech” was on a mainstream political site that assured the reader that it was not advocating censorship but linked prominently to a site whose title was “Hate speech is not free speech.” From its beginning, “hate speech” has been what Ayn Rand called an “anti-concept,” a term that doesn’t define a category with specific characteristics but serves to obscure the speaker’s intent. The term is and has always been a call for censorship.

Hatred is an emotion and can be good or bad. Hating tyranny and deadly diseases is good. Hating people for their sexual preferences or skin tones is bad. Either way, it isn’t really the emotion that matters; it’s what people do and say. What’s actually wrong is spreading falsehoods, uttering gratuitous insults, using appearance as a proxy for character, making threats, and suppressing people with discriminatory laws and violence.

“Hate speech” doesn’t mean speech expressing hatred. In practice, it means “speech I hate” or “speech I want banned.” Saying “I hate spinach” or even “Fuck J.K. Rowling” isn’t considered hate speech. Grossly insulting everyone who registers Republican isn’t hate speech. However, I’ve seen claims that drawing a picture of Muhammad and saying “there are no atheists in foxholes” are hate speech.
(more…)

“The right side of history” 2

This entry was posted in Commentary Writing and tagged language usage writing on by

Once again, let’s look at an expression which is loaded with meaning that most people don’t think about. Some writers use it without thinking, others because they’re promoting their particular philosophy. The expression is “being on the right side of history.” If you don’t support a certain cause, you supposedly aren’t on the right side of history.

What does that mean, though, and why do you want to be on that side? It’s an idea that comes from the philosophy of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and its two bastard children, Marxism and Fascism. This idea, called historicism, holds that history inexorably follows a certain path. Your only choice is to go with the tide or against it.

If you put the phrase into your writing without thinking about it, you could be lending support to historicism without knowing it.
(more…)

Redefining “equity” 1

This entry was posted in Commentary Writing and tagged usage vocabulary writing on by

In a previous post, I quoted a statement by Hamline president Fayneese Miller referring to “a purported stand-off between academic freedom and equity.” This got me thinking about the way some have tried to change the meaning of the word “equity.” It’s hard to tell what Miller meant, since she’s the only one doing the purporting. Others, though, have tried to shift the meaning of “equity” from its traditional one.

The Merriam-Webster definition of “equity” gives several technical meanings in law and finance, as well as “justice according to natural law or right; specifically: freedom from bias or favoritism.” Equity means applying the same standards to everyone; it rejects, for example, laws giving special privileges to the nobility or denying rights to people on the basis of their appearance, sex, or religion.
(more…)

Content generation with AI

This entry was posted in Tools Writing and tagged AI computers writing on by

Software is getting steadily better at passing the Turing test. This doesn’t mean computers are people and should have their civil rights recognized, but it raises some problems. Students use computer-generated output to generate essays and answer exam questions. A bot called ChatGPT has gotten a lot of attention for its ability to generate coherent answers to questions.

The issue of using AI to generate what’s euphemistically called “content writing” — low-quality filler for business pages and blogs — hasn’t gotten as much attention. The people who work in that field need to worry, though. If a customer wants some generic text to give the impression of having something useful to say, can a machine do it well enough? Computer-generated output is cheaper than paying content mill rates. It will probably have fewer errors in spelling and grammar.
(more…)

It’s not what you say…

This entry was posted in Commentary Techniques and tagged writing on by

“It’s not what you say, it’s how you say it.” A book I picked up today in the library reminded me of that saying. It’s The Reformation, a part of the “Turning Points in World History” series. The book consists of essays by different authors. One of them, “The History and Premises of Protestantism” by Hans J. Hillerbrand, includes a half-hearted apology for John Calvin. Other parts of the book are more straightforward about his career of persecuting heretics, but Hillerbrand’s careful phrasing struck me. I’m thinking of these two quotes, found in the same paragraph:
(more…)

Algorithms don’t need defending 2

This entry was posted in Commentary Writing and tagged language software usage writing on by

I’m constantly annoyed by the statements that people ignorant of software development make about “algorithms.” They don’t have the least idea what one is, yet they think they’re competent to declare how evil an algorithm is.

Let me focus on one article, because it’s from Reason, which I expect better things of. The piece is “In Defense of Algorithms,” by Elizabeth Nolan Brown. A look at her bio shows that she’s got the background to write about many things, among which she claims “tech,” but she doesn’t mention any experience with the computer industry or software development. She should have known better than to pick up this topic and put a dent in a record of excellent articles.
(more…)

Fly, my bird! 5

This entry was posted in My writing Writing and tagged fantasy fiction magic battery writing on by

Here’s Chapter 40 of The Magic Battery. It’s a little Christmas story by itself.
 
 
 
The Christmas guests at Thomas’s house were the mages Lucas Schneider, Jacob Kessler, and their families. The dinner, everyone agreed, was excellent. The fire made the room pleasantly warm. Everyone was in good spirits.

Kessler stood on a chair and raised his cup. “To Thomas Lorenz, for bringing in a new age of magic!” All joined in enthusiastically.
(more…)

Stanford’s laughable “Elimination of Harmful Language” document 1

This entry was posted in Commentary Writing and tagged language Stanford writing on by

Some things are sillier than any parody you could make of them. An example is Stanford University’s recent “Elimination of Harmful Language” document. It was greeted with so much laughter that Stanford has hidden it behind a login screen. Fortunately, the Internet Archive still lets you see the document, so we can still make fun of it. Try to imagine writing an article adhering to its demands. It would have no color (oops, can’t say that — racist!), and the effort would leave you gasping (belittles people with asthma!) and drive you insane (insults people with psychiatric issues!).

It starts with a self-own: “Content Warning: This website contains language that is offensive or harmful. Please engage with this website at your own pace.” Further on, it self-owns the self-own by telling you that a “trigger warning” “can cause stress about what’s to follow. Additionally, one can never know what may or may not trigger a particular person.”

That last is actually the one piece of sensible advice in the whole clown act. Psychological experts have found that warning someone that scary stuff is coming only makes the reader more anxious. So naturally they don’t follow their own advice.

For the rest, I can’t do better than pick out some gems:
(more…)