I took that screenshot at 5:07, and the error — "I Killed Dating Goodbye" for "I Kissed Dating Goodbye" — is still there.
If you click through to the article — "Evangelical Writer Kisses An Old Idea Goodbye/In a new film, author Joshua Harris rethinks his seminal Christian dating book" — you'll see this:
The embarrassingly illiterate error — "tenants" for "tenets" (which appears twice, once in large print) — was there at 5:07 and is still there. How can no one notice? If I'd had a mistake like that on my blog for just a couple minutes, I'd feel bad about it, and I'm doing my own proofreading. NPR has this image of being more educated and elite. You'd think they'd take some care to preserve that image.
But maybe they're so into the substance that they don't have time to attend to form. Here the substance is that there's a documentary about the harm supposedly caused by a popular book that promoted the idea of waiting to have sex until after you're married (and only dating in a serious, marriage-oriented way).
ADDED: On the substance, NPR never compares the harm caused by following that advice to the harm caused by NOT following that advice.
UPDATE, 10:41 AM: I get results. The corrections have been made.
Posts
81 comments:
NPR = time in school, not more educated.
Trump needs to defund NPR.
David Begley said...
Trump needs to defund NPR.
Trump needs to be impeached for not declaring NPR funding a campaign contribution.
NPR is broke, as are all former network-based empires.
Broke! Broke! Broke!
Broke!
Dating is taken as including sexual intimacy. Everybody knows that is hit and miss. Not everyone is a good enough kisser.
"On the substance, NPR never compares the harm caused by following that advice to the harm caused by NOT following that advice." Well, yeah. In fact, there wasn't very much in the article about the harm from following that advice. Some people got some wrong ideas which weren't what the advice was saying at all, not one of them.
So try and teach it better.
I'm not saying whether the idea is a good one or not, but the fact that someone out there can misunderstand it is not that relevant. People can misunderstand anything.
I'd add that I have a long association with the Baltimore Orthodox Jewish community, and they have always done things this way. Separate schools for boys and girls, pretty much no social interaction at all till they're ready to get married. No touching, even holding hands, till they are married. They seem to mostly have very fine happy marriages, just like the rest of us. When some of their kids don't want to follow these restrictions they deal with it.
Quit being such a pendant!
Many years ago NPR had a segment on then Senator Rod Grams proposing changing the name of the Boundary Water Canoe Area to the Hubert Humphrey Canoe Area. It was a nice across-the-aisle gesture. NPR had a one sentence statement from Grams followed by a 5 minute rant against Gram by various environmental weenies. It was the last time I listened to NPR>
I thought there's no use getting
Into heavy petting
It only leads to trouble
And seat wetting
-- Janet Weiss
Thanks for the typo alert, which I've deleted, because it's a distraction once the typo is corrected. I corrected it on my own, before reading that, but I do appreciate typo alerts, even though I'll delete them.
I corrected my typo within 2 minutes of posting. I always hit publish, then proofread. It's just my way. If you read in the first couple minutes, you'll find a mistake or 2 or 3, but I make an effort to correct them, which I do alone most of the time, though I have at least one person who is likely to point out mistakes I miss.
NPR has an entire staff, and it has left up 2 bad mistakes for hours, so I don't feel like a hypocrite. I know any time I point out a mistake, I will also make a mistake. I do care about avoiding (and correcting) mistakes, and I'm not trying to use the fact that I'm writing this on my own (or with one person helping me) to justify errors. I am going for NO ERRORS at all, even operating at this extreme disadvantage compared to NPR.
"NPR never compares the harm caused by following that advice to the harm caused by NOT following that advice."
One never need question or justify The One True Faith! In fact suggesting they do borders on blasphemy, Ms Althouse.
We could talk about cervical cancer... Naah!
never compares the harm caused by following that advice to the harm caused by NOT following that advice
that is ludicrous! there is no, CAN BE NO harm in being a promiscuous slut.
If you Enjoy your sleeping around: It Is Your RIGHT
If you (later, decide that you) didn't Enjoy your sleeping around: IT WAS *RAPE*!
IF you happen to get knocked up; there's plenty of suction hoses around to take care of it
The ONLY harm, that can EVER occur, comes from failing to believe in the one true church of NPR
Head and neck cancers... Naah!
NPR has been in decline for some time now. I have personally defunded them. If you listen carefully you will hear things like "undocumented citizens," "the Paris climate treaty," and "the Senate will never vote to impeach Trump." In the words of Ben Rhodes in his infamous NYT interview talking about journalists today, "They literally know nothing."
I listen to NPR just to remind myself how utterly dense ‘educated’ people can be.
Imagine what this world would be like if lefties were as smart as they keep telling us they are.
I’d also add, that this is an outside-in view of a topic they have no empathy for, or even a desire to understand.
A few years ago, I listen3d to an NPR piece about NASCAR (!): neither were involved directly in the industry, but the female guest was in the medical field. She wanted to discuss the fact that when cars spin out and end up going backwards, they have a tendency to fly up and flip, resulting in serious injuries. As such, it was necessary to slow the cars down until the cause could be identified and rectified....
To call a dating book 'seminal' is to get right to the purpose of dating.
i used to listen to NPR on the ways to and from work, it'd be interesting tearing up their argument
Now that i'm retired, i hardly listen; but when i do, it seems they've quit even trying to pretend that they should seem to be anything other than the DNC.
They used to have a liberal and a far-left radical pretend have a dialog about something, then come to the conclusion that the left side is correct. It seems Now, they just have two leftists agreeing with each other.
Regarding the "tenet tenant" confusion. I've seen this type of mistake a number of times. I usually think the writer is a person in her (his?) twenties, with a college degree from a well respected university. But the person has acquired his (her) vocabulary through listening (to radio, tv, podcasts, youtube, discussions with friends, lectures), instead of through reading.
Second sentence: They met a Christian college,
The story will be on a republican bill; so they'll interview Chuck Shumer about it.
frequently, it's one NPR person interviewing ANOTHER NPR person.
I enjoy some NPR programming but listening to it is a demonstration in the classic maxim: The more you know about a subject, the less respect you have for a journalist reporting on it.
You'd think they'd take some care to preserve that image.
And you'd be wrong! Proper spelling is for fascists.
On the substance, NPR never compares the harm caused by following that advice to the harm caused by NOT following that advice.
Back when I was dating the idea that a couple should be in a serious relationship before having sex was already getting to be, well, "quaint." But I don't think it hurt any of us to think of a woman as a potential mate before mating with her.
People forget what being young is like. My oldest son was in an evangelical college when the book came out, and his younger brother in a Christian high school had it in his culture as well. It was liked by many, but could also be a punchline in a dating discussion. It was one view among several. If some people felt it was bad advice, they should remember that there were other voices - modern, traditional, Christian, humorous, angry - in the air as well, and they could have chosen one of those instead. People were influenced, but it was not a "bible" of any movement in any sense. Only critics say things like that.
Not much about Muslims in their current religion stories.
"...I always hit publish, then proofread. It's just my way. If you read in the first couple minutes, you'll find a mistake or 2 or 3, but I make an effort to correct them, which I do alone most of the time, though I have at least one person who is likely to point out mistakes I miss."
I just wish that we could do so in the comment section. Esp on this older iPad, the one that I use overnight while my newest one is recharging, my posts are often embarrassing for their mistakes, mostly caused by typing or automatic spellchecking. On really egregious mistakes, I will copy, correct, repost, then delete the previous posting. But apologies are in order from me here, because I will often not fix smaller errors that you can hopefully puzzle out if you are interested. I forget that there is a preview option, and just hit Post. Again, apologies are in order for anyone here who has tried to wade through some of the obvious junk in my hurried posts.
I agree with AVI. It is an influential book, but it isn't the only (or main) thing going in evangelical circles. Also, the idea of "courtship" goes beyond only dating when looking to get married, and I do think it's harmful. Way too much up front investment in a relationship puts lots of pressure on the young people to make it work.
ok, so having finished the reading, we find that MANY people agree with the purity concept
BUT!
But not everyone feels this way ...
Lyz Lenz, a writer based in Iowa... and who's this expert on purity, with the funny spelling?
Lyz, wrote, for GLAMOR an article:
"I'm a Great Cook. Now That I'm Divorced, I'm Never Making Dinner for a Man Again"
Lyz is the managing editor of The Rumpus and the author of the forthcoming book "God Land" from Indiana University Press.
The Rumpus, is, apparently, a "Overly Personal" Poetry emag, which tells us: 'Today only, our “Write Like a Motherfucker” classic mug is just $10'
When *I* want Information about Christian Purity, i Want that from a divorced poetress that sells profane mugs
Bruce, more paragraph breaks, please. Those of us who translate narciso can scan any number of typos.
The opposite of a “religious tenant” is an unconfirmed roomer.
She wanted to discuss the fact that when cars spin out and end up going backwards, they have a tendency to fly up and flip, resulting in serious injuries. As such, it was necessary to slow the cars down until the cause could be identified and rectified.
The problem was addressed twenty years ago. This article in Wikipedia summarizes the roof flap system that is mandated on NASCAR vehicles. Also NASCAR had introduced a special restraining system to prevent a driver's head from being thrown around during a crash, and following Dale Earnhardt's death in 2001 that became mandatory.
You'd think an alleged scientist would try to find out something about an area before commenting on it. Not on NPR!
The tenets/tenants error is unforgivable when NPR does it. I agree.
Would it have been Master Persuasion if Trump had done it?
This book circulated through my home when my kid were teens. I liked his frame that a long-term "dating" relationship for teens was focused on sex and his discussion of alternative ways of social interaction for teens and thinking about marriage and dating.
Obviously kids could use the book's material in negative ways, sure. However, it did introduce what were countercultural themes of self respect and thinking about the larger context of sexual relationships at a time when all girls went on the pill at 12 or so and teenage sex was expected. I found the book a positive influence and thought provoking.
I ignore NPR and PBS.
"by following that advice to the harm caused by NOT following that advice"
My question is who is really opposing that message? NPR, obviously, which means leftist elite opinion. But underlying that?
One big problem here is that, overall, statistically, the more sexual partners a young woman has, the lower the quality guy she will be able to marry. Sex with the more promiscuous young women is not as special as that with the more selective, because it has been shared with a bunch of other guys. So the best guys are going to gravitate, in serious mate selection, to the women who make them feel the most special. And, yes, after awhile, many of the women who sleep around a lot in order to catch a guy, seem the most needy. Too needy again, to probably get a quality guy. (Part of why I quit going to Scottsdale on Friday nights some 20 years ago was the desperation of the 40-50 year old women there. Easy sex for the guys, just no one you would want to get married to, because they had become so needy).
Another part of the dynamic, is that fewer guys have sex with more women. The alpha males, getting all the sex aren't as likely to settle down with any of those women, given how easy sex is to acquire for them. And with so many of the women having sex with the alphas, there aren't enough left over for the betas. Ultimately a number of them get dispirited, and effectively exit the marriage market.
And, of course, most here have heard my rant on fatherless child rearing. Suffice it to say that women shouldn't try it, if they can help it, unless they are happy seeing their boys die early or end up in prison, and their girls pregnant out of wedlock, locking in the cycle. So, yes, finding a guy to marry isn't necessary for a woman's success, but it is a really good idea if she ever wants kids.
So, back to my question - why is pushing the message of chastity so disfavor end? Who really benefits from disfavoring it? Is it leftist leaders who want more welfare dependency in order to cement their power over the rest of us? Feminists, because so many of their leadership appear to be lesbians, and failure to find a quality male mate makes them more vulnerable to their bringing them over to the dark side? Logically, it otherwise doesn't make much sense.
Ralph L said...
Bruce, more paragraph breaks, please. Those of us who translate narciso can scan any number of typos.
I've given up on narcisco. Some good points, when I can makes sense of it. But I rarely invest the effort anymore.
The tenets/tenants error is unforgivable when NPR does it. I agree.
Would it have been Master Persuasion if Trump had done it?
Trump is clearly a very influential tenant in Chuck's mind, and he doesn't even pay rent.
"NPR has this image of being more educated and elite. You'd think they'd take some care to preserve that image."
When you are really elite, you can afford not to care.
"On the substance, NPR never compares the harm caused by following that advice to the harm caused by NOT following that advice."
Surprise!
So hes apologizing for proper Christian doctrine, I don't use long meandering paragraphs that go nowhere, I don't use the same common reference points so sue me.
Society was more stable, when basic rules of courtship were followed, this allowed institutions to form normally. We cant have that anymore
Why are leftwing democratic cultists so offended by abstaining from sex? If you want to abstain from sex, just do it. If you don't -- don't.
The book is not just about abstaining from sex.
I Kissed Dating Goodbye made the rounds in my church when I was a teen. As Freeman notes, it was not the “Bible” for everyone who read it. There were many other perscpectives in our community. My parents did however strongly promote the idea of courtship and I do agree with Freeman’s view that it does really put a lot of pressure to get it right the first time. I do really appreciate its emphasis on intentionality in relationships, on the dangers of letting physicality precede emotional intimacy. The main takeaway for me was that dating and engagement are the time to be intentional about getting to know someone first as a friend and then emotionally before getting carried away by hormones.
Because it requires self control, subordination of impulses to future goals. Then they wonder how a Weinstein comes to dominate.
I happened to turn on the TV a few Sundays ago, in the morning, and there was a TV show with this theme. The people being interviewed were devastated over the idea that Christians were polluting their minds with ..... ideas that go against the cult of the leftist church.
I'm barely involved in church life locally. I can tell you that the church I go to is all for sex. In fact, the main guy who speaks on most Sundays feels a little too comfortable talking about it.
The left need you to stay away from scary Christian churches and stay focused on what really matters. Leftwing doctrine.
Freeman -I've not read the book, so I don't know about the book. Only what NPR tells me.
"NPR has this image of being more educated and elite."
That should be "NPR, National Public Radio, has this image of being more educated and elite." At least that's the way they say things on NPR. I'm waiting for an interviewer to interject with "The United States of America" the next time a guest says "the USA".
"Would it have been Master Persuasion if Trump had done it?"
Their brands are quite different, Chuck.
Tenant/tenets: How about those drafters of contracts who choose to use the ancient recitation of consideration (which has no effect, but also does no harm) but write "In consideration of the promises . . ." instead of the correct "in consideration of the premises . . ."?
"On the substance, NPR never compares the harm caused by following that advice to the harm caused by NOT following that advice."
Assumes motives not in evidence.
Ralph L said...
"Quit being such a pendant!"
I see what you did there. Very good!
Teens and hormones and Hollywood. Hollywood would like you to have sex. Experiment. do what you want, when you want. Forget any consequences. without guilt. "The don't judge me" movement. Carlos Danger in a can. So what if you get pregnant or herpes? eh. No damage there.
Some Christian guy at age 21 goes against the grain and offers something different.
The damage! Something that could perhaps save you from making stupid decisions that get a young person into trouble. An unwanted pregnancy, STDs, etc... Teens are already confused. Lets not offer any of that dangerous "purity" as an option. The only option should be sexual freedom. Sex sex sex and more sex.
The balance is never easy, esp at young ages, but I often look at what the left are mortified over, and think - Really?
The frequency of horrible errors in "legitimate news" and "blogger" items has been increasing over the last couple of years. Take, e.g., the substitution of "reign" for "rein" in the phrase "Reining in XXXX....."
It speaks to the Recent College Graduates holding most writing slots, but also to the flaccid "editing" done by supposedly smarter people...
Accuracy is unimportant in the leftmedia in pieces about Christianity or Trump. The destructive agenda prevails.
I am reminded of Cat Person. If you don't have sex with random strangers, how will you ever become sufficiently anomic to write Cat Person?
Chuck spouted--The tenets/tenants error is unforgivable when NPR does it. I agree.
Would it have been Master Persuasion if Trump had done it?
Chuck tries fictional/hypothetical crimes and finds Trump guilty.
some of these tenets live rent-free in my head
The war on Christianity and Christmas beginning on National People's Radio.
Say what you will about the tenants of National Socialism. At least it's an ethos--and they were an OK landlord.
Althouse
I believe the woke view of grammar is that it is a racist construct, the very essence of white supremacy. I expect NPR is test driving the new grammar. Sort of Ebonics for white liberals.
Molly wrote:
"Regarding the "tenet tenant" confusion............the person has acquired his (her) vocabulary through listening"
Bingo! This is exactly the kind of mistake one would make from acquiring a word from hearing it rather than than reading it. You can usually guess the age of the writer by mistakes like this- I would, indeed, have put the writer down as someone under the age of 30 for certain, and likely to be under the age of 24.
I think, in general, one should seriously court with marriage in mind, or remain platonic friends. The main issue is trust and betrayal. People in these pseudo-marriages commit half-way. It's horrible for teenagers or people in their 20s. It's not healthy for just about everyone. These situations teach people how to disengage their loyalties and guard their trust. It can keep people from finding and committing to a life-long marriage, because they come to doubt the existence of trust & loyalty. But I'm not saying a a teenage romance with some make out sessions will necessarily cause damage. It's a matter of not taking it too far.
About 10 years ago I had a debate with a friend who thought there should be no hand-holding or kissing before engagement. That is too purist for me. I thought she was making a fetish out of purity. It's about intentions & not taking it too far.
Never heard of this book, but that's ok. To the extent it helps teens reject the idea of promiscuity it is likely a good thing.
In the Mormon culture, dating is forbidden before 16, and group dating is strongly encouraged for the next few years, with very little one on one dating until a bit later.
Conversely, the Mormon church has been pushing people to actually date, instead of hanging out, once they turn 20 or so. Date and. get married.
Chastity before marriage and complete fidelity after marriage. This is common Christian doctrine. Why does it offend leftists so much?
The first mistake, I think you can clearly put on NPR and its writers. The second one, though, almost looks like a direct quote of someone's written comment.
But apparently they're still likely to confuse correlation and causation.
Courtship is not a commitment to marriage. It does increase pressure, which may expose hidden defects.
Dating is a means to focus attention.
Friendship is a means to learn someone's character.
Dating without "benefits", without physical intimacy, reduces emotional entanglement... and conception of a "burden" (a.k.a. shared responsibility).
A tenet of tenants is that relationships should be responsible, responsive, reliable, and honest.
Raised our kids along the lines of discouraging serious dating until you're ready for marriage. Because really, what's the point of dating otherwise?
Oh, I know the answer (wink-wink-nudge-nudge) but if you're serious about sex and marriage there's no other answer and it did our kids no harm whatsoever to follow that advice. In fact, there were happier for it.
Members of the Church of the Holy Orgasm will no doubt disagree.
I have always been a poor speller, but I had no idea that made me "illiterate".
There must be some subsidies or freebies available to someone like me. Does this mean I can park in the handicapped spots?
What a horribly misleading subheading. It makes it sound like Harris has changed his ideas about sex before marriage--which he hasn't.
Proper sprelling is the balliwick of girls in the steno pool.
There are also good and bad ways to encourage chastity, I think. Encouraging chastity as a means of expressing devotion to God and his commands and for one's benefit is, I think, good. Encouraging it by telling young people that they are forever damaged goods if not chaste, even emotionally and not physically, is, I think, evil and contrary to the Gospel.
Also, many adults who grow up under that teaching end up having sexual issues. For example, I've met middle aged women still unable to shake off the feeling that sex is somehow bad or dirty even though they're only having it with their husbands! That's not good.
ADDED: On the substance, NPR never compares the harm caused by following that advice to the harm caused by NOT following that advice.
There are certainly consequences to an overly libertine love life. But I'm not convinced that the best way to avoid those harms is to completely give up on casual dating.
If you grow up in one place, move off to college, and then move again after college, you're going to spend the majority of your single years dating people you didn't grow up with. There's no way to know in advance if you're going to be compatible.
It seems to me that you could get 90% of the benefits he's seeking just by taking it slow, showing people respect, and not jumping into bed at the drop of a hat. So why take the radical option when the moderate option works almost as well?
"On the substance, NPR never compares the harm caused by following that advice to the harm caused by NOT following that advice"
Doesn't this hit on the most basic distinction between the analyst/researcher/scientist in the best Feynmanian sense*, and the advocate?
The business of the former is to expose everything, pro and con, about an idea, and show why the pros outweigh the cons.
The business of the latter is to showcase the pros, and minimize or, even better, totally ignore the cons. (Or the other way around, if you're advocating against something.)
-----------------------------------------------
*From his can-never-be-cited-as-much-as-it-deserves 1974 Caltech commencement address:
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you’ve not fooled yourself, it’s easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.”
". Those of us who translate narciso"
Whoa.
Do you give lessons?
Rocketeer,
I would follow in your footsteps, but I can't shake the feeling that narciso has some interesting things to say, that would come across if only English were his native language.
Hey! If you are a fat woman, do not despair, much less worry. There is a whole list of free bbw sites and there everyone dreams of finding such a fat lady like you. Take your girlfriends and sign up soon, so as not to miss the opportunity to meet cool guys. Maybe your love is looking for you right now.
Post a Comment