(no subject)

Earlgraytay posted:

"In the sense that if two groups of people are screaming very, very loudly about something, I tend to assume that both groups of people are rabid extremists and that unless there’s a very good reason to believe one group over the other it’s best to assume they’re not getting the full picture."

I just want to note that this seems suspiciously spoofable. If a group (say, the Internet Research Agency) can pose as people who believe in a cause and are screaming about it, then they can convince you that people who believe in that cause are all screaming, and therefore that you shouldn't be listening to anyone who talks about that cause.

(no subject)

 I find The Pardoner's Tale interesting, because it seems to predate the idea of a twist ending. In any modern story, we'd find out that the wine is poisoned right after it is drunk. It would be a karmic ending in the vein of The Twilight Zone, murder unexpectedly punished with more murder. Instead, Chaucer tells us as the wine is poisoned, tells us as the other characters plot to kill the one who will poison them, and lets us watch as those dominoes fall. Rather than surprise ("Oh shit, the wine is poisoned!"), it functions on mounting tension and dramatic irony ("They don't know the wine is poisoned! Will they drink it?")