The fifteen minutes city conspiracy “theory” (and why you believe in it)

Fifteen minutes city is one in which every basic amenity is reachable by foot and/or bikes from your house within fifteen minutes. Cars optional.

While urbanist Carlos Moreno coined the term in 2016, the concept itself is as old as mankind.

Every city that was built prior the automobiles and -paraphrasing Jason from Not Just Bikes- didn’t get bulldozed for them is a fifteen minutes city. Even though they do suffer some level of car-dependency, many cities in Europe and East Asia still easily fall to this category. Basically, if you have lived in those regions, you almost definitely have lived in one.

Now, let’s talk about the conspiracy. Supposedly, it started because of what is happening in Oxford.

Apart from embracing a fifteen minutes vision, the city council also plans to heftily fine any drivers who drive into certain zones too many times. I don’t know if the fifteen minutes vision and drivers’ fine were intended as one package. But, I do know the controversy about the latter is overblown.

The fine is actually an extreme form of road congestion pricing and, like fifteen minutes city, it is also not a new concept. Singapore created it in 1975 and London has been implementing it since 2003; in fact, London’s charge zone is one of the biggest in the world.

Personally, I am not a fan of congestion pricing. If you want to tackle congestion, you need to prevent it from happening in the first place. You have to design the city in a way that most residents prefer walking, cycling and mass transit commuting over driving; you have to minimise the presence of cars. Prevention is better than cure.

But, tyrannical?

Congestion pricing only targets drivers. Non-drivers AKA pedestrians, cyclists and mass transit commuters can easily go to other neighbourhoods as many times as they desire without getting fined. Besides, you still can drive to any places you want, albeit with a higher price; literally no one and I mean NO ONE is forcing you to stay in your neighbourhoods forever.

To be honest, as infuriating as it is, I am not surprised by the blooming popularity of this conspiracy “theory”. Some people – including you – have misguided ideas of freedom, including one involving transportation.

You believe any kinds of restrictions – even the most reasonable and minor ones – are tyrannical. You are such absolutists with their idea of freedom, you think even constructive criticisms are censorship attempts.

When you have such extreme worldview regarding freedom, you believe in the slippery slope fallacy that every restriction leads to totalitarianism. In this case, you believe cars represent freedom of movement and any restrictions against them is the same as calculated efforts to imprison you within your own neighbourhoods.

Your extremeness also closes your minds.

Every time you watch urban planning Youtube videos, you are always dismissive of the content despite the cited studies showing the harms of car-dependency and the benefits of dense, walkable and transit-oriented urban developments.

You love twisting other people’s words. Even though most urbanists never propose a complete ban of cars on cities, you insist that they always do. Even though there are no evidences the Oxford city council want to confine people to their neighbourhoods, you insist that has always been the intention.

When I try dispelling misconceptions about fifteen minutes city, you insist your definition is the right one and the one I provide is wrong, even though a simple google search would show my definition (Carlos Moreno’s, to be exact) has existed for far longer than yours.

You – a gullible fuck who falls for an unproven conspiracy “theory” – also has the gall to call me a sheep, simply because I refuse to humour you.

You are extreme because you want the world to revolve around the needs of people like you, consequentially making your so-called championing of freedom hypocritical.

In the North American context, you support local governments mandating the existence of (sub)urban sprawls where cars are the only viable mode of transports… because you believe there is nothing freer than being forced to own and drive cars and being trapped in daily traffic jams and endless financial burdens.

In a more global context, you celebrate with glee every time a cyclist is killed on the roads; you believe anyone who dare to use roads other than for driving deserve to be executed. Freedom is only for those who surrender themselves to cars.

No, I am not being unfairly judgemental here. I have had my share of interacting with the likes of you. You are literally guilty of those things.

I want to assume nuances from your arguments. But, I always end up disappointed. The more I interact with you, the more I see how close-minded you are.

You are far worse than I expected.

It is just as frustrating as talking about religions.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

MCU films kill movie stars…. and how is that supposed to be bad?

Seriously, how?

When I was a much more unsophisticated film consumer, I watched films because of their premises, they were adaptations of certain source materials and they were sequels of films that I liked. I was not star struck by the actors.

As a teen, I started taking more heed of of my sexual attractions and I did find some actors more attractive than the others. But, I still didn’t watch films because of the actors. Still wasn’t star struck by them.

When I was around 19, I started exploring cinema beyond the mainstream Hollywood. Apart from the aforementioned ones, I also added a new reason for me to watch a film: the director. Nowadays, I already have three personal favourites.

And this was when I started to bewildered by the concept of a “movie star”.

You are watching a film and yet, instead of focusing on the story and maybe on how its execution, you choose to focus on your favourite actors, even though they are supposed to be the characters they are depicting instead of being themselves; that’s literally what actors are hired for.

Yes, I do know some actors perform better than the others; I have certainly caught myself fawning over their sublime performances. But, it still does not make me star struck for multiple reasons.

Good acting skills aren’t unique to specific actors, the most acclaimed actors don’t always give their best performances and, most importantly, the most popular actors aren’t always the best performers.

It should also be noted that some actors are famous for portraying characters with similar traits, over and over and over again.

I don’t think this is necessarily bad. If they are actors who always perform characters specifically made for them and cannot be performed by anyone else, then I can see why people watch films just for them. I am thinking of the likes of Rowan Atkinson, Jackie Chan and Charlie Chaplin, whom we never expect to have a wide acting range (even though they may have it).

But, most actors aren’t like that. We expect most of them to have an actually wide range instead of simply performing their public personas.

Okay, if you love them solely for their public personas, then why bother watching their films? I mean, you can simply tune in to any of their media appearances, including their interviews and any shows they guest star in.

Heck, we are in 2023. I am certain some of your favourite movie stars have become Youtubers as well. You can definitely watch their videos.

My point is people love to bash MCU for supposedly showcasing filmmaking at its shallowest… and yet, they often have nothing but the shallowest arguments.

First, Martin Scorcese – supposedly one of the most acclaimed directors of all time – argued MCU films are not cinema; he made his own definition of the word “cinema” and act like it is the most objective one. Basically, if I didn’t know who uttered the words, I would assume they were uttered by a snot-nosed and self-righteous teenager.

Then, we also have Quentin Tarantino – another supposedly acclaimed director – who thinks MCU films are bad because they kill the movie stars.

I mean, there are lots to criticise about MCU films. The extreme commercialisation, the lack of risk-taking and the excessive amount of jokes. But, he criticises them because they kill celebrity worship, something that actually deserves to be killed off?

He is a fucking film director. He should be focused on the stories and how they are executed. But, for some reasons, he thinks upholding celebrity worship – something of no value – is just as important. Are you fucking kidding me?

I don’t know if they are desperate with their criticisms or they genuinely believe they are onto something.

But, one thing is certain: their simps will take their words like the gospel, regardless of the profundity or lack thereof. Because status trumps everything.

.

.

Oh, and there are times when I actually watch films solely for their actors.

Those films are called porn.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

‘Everything Everywhere All At Once’ isn’t that confusing

*spoiler alert*

I admit it is far from the most escapist film ever.

It is a comedic, psychological, absurdist, action-packed sci-fi film. Its story starts as one before splitting into two main branches that symbolically paralleling each other. It depicts existentialism, nihilism, generational gaps and identity crisis of children with foreign-born parents.

It is an undoubtedly highly-thematic, idiosyncratic and cerebral film that cannot put into any boxes. It is definitely not for everyone. In fact, I am surprised by its box office success.

But, is it really hard to follow?

In the beginning, we see our main protagonist Evelyn Wang struggling not only with the IRS’s audit of her laundromat business, but also with her strained relationships with her (supposedly) meek and naive husband, demanding father and queer daughter who seems detached from her ancestral heritage. The story starts branching out when someone from a parallel universe approaches her.

The film mainly focuses on two branches. One is a continuation of her earthly struggles story. The other one is about her fight against a powerful being – a parallel universe version of her daughter – who wants to destroy the multiverse, with the help of her husband’s parallel universe version.

There are lots to take in and I have barely scratched the surface by not detailing the minor but still consequential stories and discussing the film’s loaded themes. But, the plot is still clearly laid out for us.

In both main stories, you can easily determine the introduction, rise, climax, fall and resolution. Even though the parallel universes overlap with each other, we still can tell which is which. They are linearly and unambiguously depicted.

I have watched arthouse films where the lines between the past and present and between the physical and metaphysical worlds are blurred. I have watched arthouse films where the stories are partially or entirely conveyed through unexplained and seemingly-random imagery.

I have watched Shane Carruth’s Primer (hard to enjoy his works after knowing what he did), a time travel film where the characters speak with lots of technical jargons and create paradoxes so complex, you can’t discern the different timelines from each other.

There are many films with plots open to interpretations, where you are required to figure everything out yourself. But, Everything Everywhere All At Once is not one of them. If you simply pay attention, you would know what is going on.

Unfortunately, I have encountered something like this before.

I have heard people complaining how the 2009 Sherlock Holmes film has a very complex mystery, even though it is overwhelmed by the many action scenes and the explanations barely use any jargons.

While watching La La Land in the theatre with me, my sister overheard another filmgoer’s confusion about what those fantasy sequences are supposed to be, even though it is blatantly obvious they depict the characters’ fantasies.

Some Harry Potter fans complain the film adaptation of Half-Blood Prince is boring and has nothing going on, even though it clearly has things going on… in the forms of calm-paced and dialogue-driven scenes.

Basically, some people are unable to understand a story if it requires slightly more efforts and isn’t 99.9% escapist.

I don’t know if they are that stupid or just lazy. I hope it is the latter. I already have many reasons to be cynical.

The last thing I need is to have another one.

Oh, and one more thing:

If you watched the trailer and/or saw the weird poster that I use for this blogpost prior watching the film, why did you expect it to be “normal”?

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Being a child of a single mother

Indonesia is like most places on earth. It is considered preferable for children to have both mom and dad. In fact, unlike in America and much of the west, almost every person here is conservative; truly liberal-minded people are a rarity here.

And yet, the vitriol against single mothers in America is extreme, something which I don’t see in Indonesia. Maybe single motherhood isn’t as common or talked about as much. But, I never heard about a huge number of Indonesians demonising single mothers, blaming them for every existing social ill.

Worse, those people even use scientific papers – which supposedly claim that children of single mothers are more likely to be worse off – as their evidences. They feel more empowered and, among the gullible ones, they seem to be an ideologically sound bunch.

I have never read those papers. Knowing how zealous ideologues can be, they may either oversimplify the content or straight up lie about it. But, even if the papers truly make such claim, they are peer-reviewed and their results can be replicated by other peer-reviewed researches, I still don’t see how it proves the dangers of single motherhood.

For misogynists, those studies affirm their preconceived beliefs about women, especially their supposed inherent incompetence in anything. For gullible people, they start thinking that the misogynists are on something.

But, for sceptical people who try their best embracing the complexity of reality, they won’t take the studies for granted and they acknowledge that no one and nothing lives in a vacuum.

They realise we are shaped not just by our homes, but also by our racial and ethnic backgrounds, our schools, work places, the media we consume, the dominant political and religious beliefs in our area, the political and religious beliefs we embrace, any places sociologists refer to as the “third places”, any thoughts we are exposed to, any interactions we immerse ourselves in.

If you are truly open-minded, you would not be too quick to blame something on only one factor, you would consider multiple of them.

You would not blame it entirely on single mothers, you would also hold other aspects of the society accountable for severely failing those fatherless children.

Yes, I know there are bloated elephants in the room: the absent fathers.

Unless the mothers slander the fathers and undeservingly end up with full custody of the children, we can definitely say the absent fathers are also a factor to consider. It is not the mothers’ faults that their partners died or were lost on the way to buy cigarettes.

I initially wanted to omit this, as it was too obvious and easy. But then, I remember the people who love demonising single motherhood never talk about negligent fathers and refuse to hold men accountable to anything. In the end, I have to state the obvious.

Now, for my anecdote as a son of a single mother.

I was very young when my father died, I don’t have a single memory of him. I started to long for a father figure when I was a teenager. Inexplicably, that longing feeling died out after I graduated high school.

Now, as a thirty-year-old man, I am glad I was raised by one parent. It is emotionally burdensome to face the demands from one parent. I cannot imagine facing demands from two!

I don’t know what kind of person he was. He might be able to balance my mom’s burdensome bearing. But, it is also possible he was either equally burdensome or my mom’s biggest apologist. Considering what kind of person my mom is, you have to be either toxic or permissive with toxicity in order to enjoy her presence, let alone marrying her.

Oh, and so-called manliness is not a concern. For one, I don’t give a fuck about conforming to an arbitrary and ever-changing gender role. But, even if I do, my conservative mom loves upholding gender roles anyway. She loves shaming me every time I show lack of interest in anything automotive and outdoor-related… or, more frequently, show my fear of height.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

The insensibility of sensibilities

Yes, sensibilities can be insensible.

My dictionary has two definitions of sensibilities; 1. our responsiveness to anything emotional; 2. our delicate sensitivity. Either way, they are not based on reasons, they are based on our emotions… and our emotions can suck.

With that in mind, it is reasonable to believe our sensibilities can be insensible.

How do you know yours are sensible or not? Just take a look at the things you are emotionally reacting to.

Do they offend you because they are actually harmful to you and your fellow human beings? Or do they offend you simply because you personally don’t like them?

Hate speech, incitement of violence, conspiracies about specific individuals or groups, corporal punishments on children, LGBT+ conversion therapy, anti-vaxxer beliefs, platforming bigots and conspiracy “theorists” without holding them accountable, toxic masculinity and femininity, religious fundamentalism. Those things are harmful because they either directly inflict physical and/or psychological harms upon others, empower others to do the same or compel them to inflict harms upon themselves. If you are a truly decent human being, they should offend you greatly.

But, things like disobeying dress codes, dressing like a slob, speaking with crude accents or dialects, having different tastes, diets and religions, not masculine or feminine enough, too masculine or feminine, being physically unattractive? How are any of those harmful in any ways?

If they do not inflict any physical and psychological traumas upon anyone, if being offended is the only thing you and others experience, then they are definitely harmless and your sensibilities are definitely insensible.

Obviously, we are human beings. No one has the right to tell us how and what to feel. No one has the right to prohibit us from establishing our own standards, no matter how arbitrary they are.

But, it becomes a problem when you mistake your emotions as objective measurement tools, when you are unable to distinguish your biases from the objective reality.

In this case, you and your sensibilities can go fuck yourselves.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Imperial system: visualisation, heat and us

In one of my blogposts, I asserted that my problem with imperial system was not the system itself, it was the people who insist it is more sensical and systematic than metric.

Some time after I published it, I found two more pro-imperial arguments.

One is about visualisation. Some believe imperial units are better because they are easier to visualise than the extra-detailed metric ones, especially regarding height. When I asserted that it was a matter of upbringing, one of them claimed to be a non-American and, despite growing metric, they still preferred imperial for the easier visualisation.

But, the more I read their arguments words per words, the more unconvinced I become. Everything they said was not even remotely tangible and objective. All they did was describing how their own mind works; they might as well retell their imaginations. While I acknowledge the validity of their anecdotes, they are not scientific evidences.

Then, there is also the Fahrenheit and the human bodies argument.

Some argue Fahrenheit makes more sense because it measures how our corporeal bodies react to different levels of heat and cold. Even if what they say is true (I never bother to fact check), it further proves the inferiority of Fahrenheit.

In case they forget, the universe does not revolve around us and human body temperature is certainly not the only thing science cares about. While the human-centrism isn’t necessarily conceited, it certainly makes the approach far from unbiased.

Listening to pro-imperial arguments makes me even more pro-metric.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Being civil

No, it is not as good as some people think they are.

People -me included- often have positive receptions of old footage of debates, especially when they involve bigots and their opponents.

I love watching the footage because the anti-bigots -who tended to be from marginalised groups- were able to intellectually eviscerate their opponents calmly; not once they raised their voices and resorted to personal attacks. I wish I am someone who is capable of calmly roasting my opponents.

But, it seems many other people are inspired by the old footage for the wrong reasons.

Very frequently, they would praise people in the olden days for their ability to stay civil, regardless of their opponents’ views. If the debates involve trivial topics like our tastes in foods and entertainment, then I am all for the civility.

But, if they involve topics like “should we treat our fellow human beings like actual human beings?”, then why should we celebrate the civility? What’s so wholesome about being nice towards those who dehumanise their fellow human beings?

Call me radical. But, we have no obligations to be nice to bigots. In fact, I have no moral qualms about being uncivil against them. It will be a set back for causes, that’s for sure. But, there is nothing immoral about giving them less than stellar treatments.

The root of the bothsideism is very telling. It is either an extreme case of moral relativism OR they realise how horrible their opinions are and they want to persuade the world that no one should face social consequences for their horrible opinions.

From my experiences, it is often the latter.

Personally, I believe the problem is many think civility is the only bare minimum out there. Somehow, morality is optional.

If morality is also the bare minimum of most people, what we debate about would be a lot different. Instead of the justifiability of bigotry, we would have debates on how to fight it.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t see anything wrong about debating bigots. But, there should be no pretence that the debates are about accepting the possibility of them being right.

If we embrace the pretence, the debates will give an illusion of equal validity of all opinions. Whether you like it or not, there are such thing as wrong opinions and it dishonest to believe otherwise.

You cannot expect me to believe that dehumanising hatred of inconsequential human differences is on equal ground with understanding and coexistence. The former actually breeds prejudice and violence. The latter? They create peace and harmony.

I do realise my argument also applies to science vs pseudoscience debates. But, I focus on bigotry instead because it riles me up even more.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Being Indonesian 2

 

This is a somewhat loose English translation of this essay.

On Facebook, there are lots of Indonesians who say we should appreciate our government’s efforts in handling the ongoing pandemic; for them, the government has done their best and there is no country that competently handles this crisis.

Of course, only fucktards believe that.

First of all, instead of being alert and doing any preventative measures, the government chose to be cocky.

We are told our country can competently handle the plague, even though our healthcare is abysmal and has been since the dawn of time. Since when our country is a healthcare champion?

We are also told our country is divinely blessed by the Almighty, as if we are the only country that deserves the blessing. How can we say that we, a country of savages, deserve it?

Don’t forget that last February, the government prepared 72 billion Rupiahs fund for foreign influences so they could improve our country’s image, as if the government already gave up even before the plague came approaching.

Second, there are obviously countries that skilfully handle this pandemic.

In South Korea, the virus has been plaguing since late January and their death toll is 211. In Malaysia, outbreak started in late January, their death toll is 70. In New Zealand, outbreak started in late February, their death toll is 4. In Singapore, outbreak started in late January, their death toll is 7.*

Taiwan is geographically close to China and has lots of flights from and to China. But, their death toll is 6. Taiwan has been implementing preventative measures since December; they acted so fast, they didn’t need a lockdown! If they were slow, the outbreak would have started and claimed victims before New Year.*

Indonesia? The outbreak started in early March, our death toll is 306, higher than the number of people who have recovered.*

Someone ‘refuted’ my statement by reminding me that we live in Indonesia and the foreign methods may not work here.

Even though there is a truth in that, the problem is our method of handling the outbreak is to be conceited and the foreign method is to be vigilant! The ‘refutation’ is nothing but a rambling of pea-brained reactionary and it lacks any common sense.

---

We frequently condemn our government which we perceive as corrupt. But, every time they receive foreign condemnation, we defend them! We want to be proud of our country so much, we are willing to defend our country on the world stage, even though we are obviously the wrong one!

If we want to be proud of our own country, shouldn’t we be strongly-principled and sternly hold our government and fellow citizens accountable?

Every time we are suggested to use new methods, we always say they are only suitable for other countries and think ours perfectly suit our country, even though many of our methods are clearly defective and aggravating the problems!

We also the foreign methods will erode our national identity.

If we are really worried about the uniqueness of our nation, why don’t we preserve our cultural heritages more diligently? Why do have to maintain lifestyles that clearly handicap the growth of our nation?

Idiocy, degeneracy and close-mindedness have been so deeply ingrained in our country, we think those are the requirements we need to fulfil if we want to be Indonesians.

---

There is one governmental effort worthy of praise: legally pursuing those who evict medical workers from their rented houses and reject the burials of victims in their villages.

If the legal actions are executed, I doubt all of those people will end up remorseful. But, I hope they are branded as ungodly beings, albeit temporarily.

.

.

*As of the time when I wrote the original Indonesian essay.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

 

Pop science, we will always need it

When I say ‘we’, I actually mean ‘I’.

Is pop science guilty of oversimplification and sometimes misinformation? Absolutely yes.

Should we get rid of it? Over my rotting, maggot-infested, bloated dead body.

Because I grew up watching Bill Nye and reading those Indonesian-translations of foreign science books (encyclopaedias included), I ended up loving natural sciences. I was mesmerised by how they guided me to unearth and cherish the allure of the universe. Together with my favourite films, they made my childhood magical.

My love of them started diminishing when I started studying them in schools. There was no more sense of awe and inquisitiveness, there was only obligation to memorise things for the grades; many others studied them because they wanted to look smart. For me, natural sciences had mutated into lifeless entities programmed to make robots out of us.

If it wasn’t for access to cable TV and the internet, my relationships with them would end like mine with math: dead with zero change of resurrection. The documentaries on Discovery, NatGeo and the BBC persistently illuminated the dying flame in me throughout my school years.

Of course, as I said in the beginning, pop science is guilty of oversimplification and misinformation and one may argue my understanding of science is deeply-flawed.

It is indeed a reasonable counter-argument. But, after becoming an internet addict, my favourite pop science works are now on Youtube; despite their imperfections, channels like Kurzgesagt, ASAPScience, Aspect Science, MinuteEarth, It’s Okay To Be Smart, PBS Eons and SciShow have upped my appreciation of science.

They have shown me how science is never about knowing absolute facts; instead, science is all about constantly enhancing our prevailing knowledge and acknowledges that even our physical world is full of greyness. Combined with their willingness to rectifying their own past content, they have also shown how science is all about embracing healthy scepticism (not to be confused with accusing everything of being a conspiracy).

As wonderful as they are, the books and documentaries I grew up with failed to show the wonderful nuances. While this can be attributed to my then-undeveloped brain, they do mostly focus on absolute facts and very little on the intricacies.

If you ask me ‘should we get rid of pop science?’ again, my answer would still be ‘over my rotting, maggot-infested, bloated dead body’. But, I would also say we need media watchdogs.

Yes, we have been having them since forever. But, even though I can’t say if there is a shortage of them, I can definitely say we need lots of them and we need them to distribute their findings to the masses rather than being content about having niche ‘audiences’.

Correlating to the topic in question, I believe every media watchdog must have at least two teams dedicated to scrutinise works of science journalism and pop science: one specialises in medicine and one for the other disciplines.

I want to emphasise on medicine because medical quackery is arguably the most dangerous form of pseudoscience. No matter how frustrating creationism or flat earth myth can be, I have never heard anyone getting physical harmed because of them. But, I do have heard of people getting physically harmed by scientifically unproven or debunked treatments.

I believe getting rid of pop science is a bad idea. There will always be shitty teachers who fail to show the beauty of natural sciences and their roles in profoundly shaping humanity. As flawed as pop science can be, it knows how to make science captivating for the laypeople to learn about.

If there is no pop science, they would definitely be more people who see their favourite preachers, conspiracists and snake oil salespeople as their ‘science teachers’.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

The problem with imperial system…

… Is not on the system itself. It is on the people who use it.

As a non-American who definitely uses the metric system, I genuinely don’t mind if people use the imperial one. If Americans want to preserve it for cultural reasons and for its perceived playfulness, I don’t mind it at all.

What I do mind is them insisting that imperial system is the best system.

Let’s see…

1 mile is equal to 8 furlongs, is equal to 1760 yards, is equal to 5280 feet, is equal to 63.360 inches. Compare that to their metric counterparts in which 0.001 kilometre is equal to 0.01 hectometre, is equal to 0.1 decametre, is equal to 1 metre, is equal to 10 decimetres, is equal to 100 centimetres, is equal to 1000 millimetres.

From that one paragraph alone, you can see how metric system is a base 10 measurement system in which conversion from one unit to another can be done by simply moving the decimal point; the existence of the metric staircase eases the learning process. Heck, throughout my school life as a math-hating student, metric system was one of the very few things I had no problems learning about in math classes!

The values of imperial units, on the other hand, do not form a consistent pattern and it forbids us from having an all-inclusive conversion method; we are forced to memorise one conversion method for each pair of units. I don’t know how people who struggle with math survive in America.

If anything, the name ‘imperial system’ feels like a misnomer because the word ‘system’ means a group of interconnected things…and imperial units do not naturally interconnect with each other; we have to manufacture the connections ourselves!

Okay, that’s a bit misleading.

Back in the day, most people (presumably) wouldn’t find any of the existing measurement systems unsystematic as every single one of them was unsystematic; comparing defective things with each other would not reveal their own defects.

But, nowadays, the metric system has entered the stage and the comparison reveals a juxtaposition for everyone to behold! Believing in imperial’s non-existing superiority is no longer excusable!

And no, it is not a matter of differing opinions. My argument is based on the numbers themselves and they clearly show how orderly and precise the metric system is!

The imperial worshippers either have not learned the metric system but they are arrogant enough to have strong opinions about it*… or they have learned it but their attachment to traditions clouds their judgement.

Don’t know which one’s worse.

And no, imperial does not contribute to America’s scientific triumph.

Like the rest of the world, American scientists use metric because they are also aware of its efficiency. The triumph exists not because of imperial’s mass usage, but despite of it.

Just like how the world respects America not because of the existence of Americans like Donald Trump, but despite of it. The world respects America because of Americans who are the exact opposites of him!

 

*Admittedly, I can get too opinionated in topics I know little about. But, I am confident that’s not case regarding ‘metric vs imperial’ because I have studied both.

I attended one international school and my British math textbook used imperial units as Brits still use both systems. After I started becoming an internet addict, I used a chunk of my spare time studying imperial units as well.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.