pockycrusader: (Default)

September 2017

10 111213 141516
171819 20 212223

Custom Text

Most Popular Tags

(no subject)

Sep. 20th, 2017 03:06 pm
independence1776: Tallit (Jewish prayer shawl) (Jewish)
[personal profile] independence1776
L'shanah tovah u’metukah! For a good and sweet year!


Sep. 20th, 2017 04:54 pm
lusentoj: (Default)
[personal profile] lusentoj posting in [community profile] learning_japanese
Slowly updating the layout. If you're red-green colourblind let me know how well you can see the changes in link color when you hover....
Sometimes opponents in argument, especially opponents who adhere to some ideology or other, will deliberately blind themselves to your good faith. If someone says something like the following to you, either because they've learned of an affiliation you have (or are accused of having), or after you have tried to earnestly engage with them:

"Your hatred has become such a large part of you that it is now part of your identity. Appeals to reason and kindness will have no effect on you. There is nothing you can do to make me forget your true intentions."

It's no longer of use to you, or to your position, to continue to be friendly and forgiving with this person. What this cold, robotic and self-righteous projection really means:

"Hatred has become such a large part of how I view you that it is now part of the identity I ascribe to you. Your appeals to reason and kindness will have no effect on me, because the identity that I have ascribed to you precludes me interpreting your reasonableness and kindness as such. There is nothing you can do to erase my villification of you."

Such a person has revoked all willingness to grant you the benefit of the doubt. You may as well do the same, as all benefit you extend to the person will be taken advantage of, turned around and weaponized against you. This is why you should never apologize to an ideologue on a moral crusade if you intend to remain a free and independent agent. Zealots who smell weakness will not be satisfied until opponents are either destroyed or assimilated into the horde. This is especially true of the current climate's "Social Justice" Marxists, as their ideology denies the existence of altruism (when convenient), viewing all human interaction instead as purely a matter of power and authority. In other words, any compassion you extend is perceived by a Social Marxist as a power vacuum to take advantage of, which they will do if you fail to be sufficiently assertive.

Once you've realized you've been pigeonholed in such a way, it's about time to either back out of the conversation entirely, enact perfect robotic patience and deal exclusively in the facts, or lay the rhetorical smackdown. If you choose the latter, forget politeness. Mock and ridicule the person's unreasonable claims and standards. Get a bit mean. Bruise the opponent's ego. Reveal your disgust and disdain.

In other words, abandon the high ground in favor of the equal ground, and beat them there. You will win because you're free.

I felt like writing about this because of this hilarious clip: Middle-aged Man Triggered by MILO Poster at UC Berkeley.

The guys who were confronted by the man who tore their poster down didn't apologize or sympathize, didn't try to reason with him much and didn't get aggressive with him either. They just plain wouldn't take his shit and showed him that they found him ridiculous. They took the equal ground and laughed at him, and he downright shorted out.

Pop culture, feminism, etc.

Sep. 14th, 2017 08:22 pm
3v3y2k: (Default)
[personal profile] 3v3y2k posting in [community profile] addme
AGE: 25
INTERESTS & HOBBIES: Pop music, pop culture, trans-inclusive feminism, LGBTQIA issues, social justice, comedy
LOOKING FOR: People from ONTD, or other people interested in discussing pop culture, politics/feminism or our daily lives! (And of course the intersections of it all!) LGBTQIA-friendly people only!!
ANYTHING ELSE?: I'm trying to start up a pop culture/current events community, 
[community profile] howdareuCurrently looking for members/mods to help grow the community, so message me if you're interested! For those who care, my faves include Britney, Madonna, Kylie, Carly Rae Jepsen and Tove Lo. Fave shows include 30 Rock, Sex and the City, Will & Grace (SO excited for the revival!), Drop Dead Diva, and Parks and Rec.
Hey-hey, everyone!

I've been a hermitess online lately, as you all know. My friend Christina got me out of it, because I received an email and I wanted to reply. Now, how great is that??? She also sent me a pretty birthday card (Yay!) and without her emails my inbox would be full of tumbleweed.

Anyway, I've been in a good mood lately. ^_^ Also, I began making jewelry again. I've already made my sister two bracelets that match, and I'm going to make another for her. [[my mom and I decided that my sister's hair makes us think of "sister golden hair surprise"]] I have always wanted my sister's red hair, but, being a brunette, I also know it wouldn't work.

I guess this is my contribution to socialization. I hope I feel like posting later. :D


Looking for some new friends

Sep. 13th, 2017 04:24 pm
strumbella: (Default)
[personal profile] strumbella posting in [community profile] addme
NAME: Frankie aka Strumbella
AGE: Early 50s
INTERESTS & HOBBIES: Music, guitar, drumming,reading, internet, making lists
LOOKING FOR: I'm looking for some new friends who post and or comment on a fairly regular basis. I do comment in return should I have something to say. Age isn't a factor for me when making friends, we can all learn from one another.
NOT INTERESTED IN: Politics, Racism.
ANYTHING ELSE?: Lived in large cities most of my life and then about 4 years ago moved in a very small town. Still not quite found my niche here, however I'm loving the NO drama and the laid back atmosphere.

Scumbag DeFranco

Sep. 13th, 2017 03:24 pm
amyvanhym: (intomadness)
[personal profile] amyvanhym
Sargon has done a video, largely about PewDiePie, near the end of which he decries physically violent responses to racist cuss words. As a sane and reasonable individual, I agree with him. At 10:10 in the video (embedded below), after showing a violent clip, he said, "Did anyone feel good watching that? Did anyone feel good watching a black kid punching a white woman in the face because she said some words?"

It reminded me of a Philip DeFranco segment that I've been carrying with me since May. DeFranco tries to come off as a cool, chill, friendly, easygoing, conversational guy. That's the persona he projects to his 5.6 million YouTube subscribers. And I think that's what makes his open enjoyment of racially motivated violence so insidious and thus so memorable.

In May DeFranco featured a video of a black man and a white woman arguing heatedly on a bus which escalated to namecalling, which escalated to "nigger." The man waited for a chance to escape, slapped her extremely hard in the face, and ran away.

After showing the footage DeFranco said, "Violence is never an appropriate response to words, BUUUUUTT, I don't feel bad that it happened. Hitting that woman was wrong, it was illegal, it was technically assault, BUT, if I was that bus driver and that lady was like "Call 911! Call 911! Call the police!" I'd be like, "Okay... Oh no, I forgot how phones work! Oh no!"

Amateur Windowspaint infographic and video embeds under the cut. )


tl;dr fuck that guy

Edit: Oh hey, and look what happened within five minutes of my submitting this entry to /r/DeFranco, Philip DeFranco's official subreddit: )

Beginner's Phrases

Sep. 12th, 2017 06:57 am
lusentoj: (汗)
[personal profile] lusentoj posting in [community profile] learning_japanese
Here's some stuff you'll see a lot right when you start out, so I thought I'd explain them here. Pronunciation of the kanji is in katakana.

大 丈夫(ダイジョーブ)This is 丈夫 "durable" and 大 "big", so we end up with "Hey, I saw you fall! Are you alright?" "Don't worry, I'm VERY DURABLE!" = I'm fine!. Thus "Hey, are you really durable?" = "Are you alright? Can you handle whatever's happening to you?".

お 邪魔 し ます(ジャマシ) The お means "you(r)", 邪魔 means "hinder", します means "(I) do/am doing". So together "I'm doing something that hinders you" = I'm being a nuisance/bother (to your work, to your peace at home, etc). 邪魔 する な! "don't hinder!" = "stop bothering (us)!" ex. don't break into our conversation!

Read more... )
A day after watching S7E7 I scrawled out a long, overambitious and scatterbrained mountain of half-hatched and stupid reflections. Over the next however long, I'll try to break up my thoughts into relatively bite-sized (or at least snack-sized), saner parts. I've been dicking around on reddit the couple weeks since, arguing here and there about Thrones. I wish reddit wasn't the main conversation hub but there the conversation be, churning on and on in the land of minimal individual identity, low comment shelf life and voting-induced splitting.

The Bittersweet vs Tragic Pseudodebate

Some in the reddit Thronesphere have suggested that because George RR Martin said the series will have a "bittersweet" ending, one of more main beloved characters (Jon, Daenerys) is likely to die. The popular counterargument? REEEEE BITTERSWEET DOESN'T MEAN TRAGIC REEEEEEEE

Except it does. Tragedy is the bitter part of bittersweetness. The sweetness is the meaningful thing you build using the tragedy or in spite of the tragedy. An ending can't be bittersweet unless it's also tragic. TVTropes confirms: "Somewhere between the Happily Ever After and the Downer Ending, the Bittersweet Ending happens when victory came at a harsh price, when, for whatever reason, the heroes cannot fully enjoy the reward of their actions, when some irrevocable loss has happened during the course of the events, and nothing will ever be the same again."

TVTropes' fourth example of a bittersweet ending: "When the victory is only achieved at the sacrifice of people dear to the heroes (if not the heroes themselves)."

It's a non-debate. Death of a beloved character is an element of the bittersweet ending. Calling it 'bittersweet' absolutely does not preclude the death of one or more beloved characters. This should be especially obvious in Thrones.

But this point was largely ignored when I first made it, and when I made it again, so I made a top-level post. There's some branching conversation there that I might blab about later.

My deadpool money's on Dany (and Jaime). The self-inserting shipper tweens in /r/freefolk don't like that very much, as demonstrated by consistent downvoting, yet most mysteriously refrain from explaining why. And this is why voting sucks: if you can't explain your position, it has no value, and so you have no place influencing the conversation in any way. When voting affects comment visibility and makes an implicit appleal to popularity, as is constant on reddit, voting is cheating.

(no subject)

Sep. 10th, 2017 09:23 pm
sravakavarn: (Default)
[personal profile] sravakavarn
 Stay, by Jennifer Michael Hecht, go ahead and read it.

(no subject)

Sep. 10th, 2017 09:22 pm
sravakavarn: (Default)
[personal profile] sravakavarn
 I get to teach high school in Utah in a journalism course on 9/11. 


Pankaj Mishra is erudite and compelling as a writer, and yet, I have almost never been more frustrated by his writing or a popular critique of the Enlightenment.  Mishra’s critique of globalization goes back to the Enlightenment’s philosophes and the various reactions and ressentiment that it exposes when the promises of development are realized upon.  Yes, neoliberal snottiness and whiggish history plays villains, but Mishra wants to see this as a psychological development between modernity and its periphery.  He traces 18th and 19th century reactions of Germany, Russia, and Italy as well as the parallel developments in Zionism, then in Iran, India, and among various kinds of Islamism, throwing in overlaps with Timothy McVeigh and Donald Trump.  In short, Mishra attempts a grand theory of ressentiment.

Mishra places blame everywhere and nowhere for globalization’s elitism and the nationalism that emerges in reaction. After using Gabriele D’Annunzio as a cautionary anecdote,  Mishra starts with the now obviously naive declarations of the end of the history and then jumps backwards to the conflict between Rousseau and Voltaire.  Mishra’s sympathies are deeply with Rousseau even though he paints Rousseau as increasingly populist and even conservative in his battle with the philosophes. Mishra then jumps ahead to the Iranian revolution, Ataturk and Hitler, Herzl’s use of social Darwinism and his original liberal German nationalism, and the Mazzini inspired everyone from Hinduvtaists to Jabtinsky. 

Mishra, however, traces genealogies in ways that link Islamists to Orthodox Christian thinkers, and shows that anti-Western thinkers were deeply schooled in Western thought.  He also condemns the “compradors” such as Niapal and Rushie for lacking all nuance in their defense of the Enlightenment.  Yet I am giving Mishra more of an argument that he allows.  His genealogies are not maintained and often done by jumping between historical moments and movements to traces analogies and letting the juxtaposition stand as argument.  By doing this, he is able to conflate different kinds of Enlightenment, modernity, and reactionaries.  Religious nationalists and racialists are seen as having some response to the Enlightenment.

Mishra knows that capitalism and secularization have created brutal competitions, but he seems unwilling to go the way of Marxists in dealing with the limitations of capitalism. He condemns Marxism as mirroring capitalist thinkers belief in progress and essentially putting Protestant eschatology into a secular form, but Mishra doesn’t argue this from Marx’s words or even his actions but just asserts it.  He, however, oddly defends Leninism, and still even more oddly doesn’t mention Adorno or Horkheimer’s similar critiques about the “Dialectics of the Enlightenment” nor does Mishra talk about the differences of Latin America’s experience of liberal modernity compares and contrasts with India and Iran, Russia and Germany.

Furthermore, Mishra far, far too often just name-drops and uses short hand to stand in for an argument.  Take the following paragraph:

After all, Maxim Gorky, the Bolshevik, Muhammad Iqbal, the poet-advocate of “pure” I Islam, Martin Buber, the exponent of the “New Jew”, and Lu Xun, the campaigner for a “New Life” in China, as well as D’Annunzio, were all devotees of Nietzsche. Asian anti- imperialists and American robber barons borrowed equally eagerly from the 19th- century polymath Herbert Spencer, the first truly global thinker – who, after reading Darwin, coined the term “survival of the fittest”. Hitler revered Atatürk (literally “the father of the Turks”) as his guru; Lenin and Gramsci were keen on Taylorism, or “Americanism”; American New Dealers later borrowed from Mussolini’s “corporatism”.

Everything becomes everything else because they seem to rhyme or have overlapping influences even if the answers are diametrically opposed. Mishra has given himself a impossible task:  to explain the move from rationalism to ressentiment without completely condemning the “West” or the response to it.  Moving the definition of modernity and the precise ways it fails around, Mishra’s anecdotes are often insightful but his conclusions are milquetoast.

He does not explore masculinity and supposed feminization, he condemns Modi and Trump but is sympathetic to the romanticism and populism of which they seem like modern representations.  Mishra’s argument that

“The key to man’s behaviour lies not in any clash of opposed civilizations, but, on the contrary, in irresistible mimetic desire: the logic of fascination, emulation and righteous self-assertion that binds the rivals inseparably. It lies in ressentiment, the tormented mirror games in which the West as well as its ostensible enemies and indeed all inhabitants of the modern world are trapped.”

Yet there are better and more coherent articulations of this:  Isaiah Berlin’s histories of Russian and Counter-Enlightenment thought, Camus’s critique of revolutionary nihilism, even banal books like “Jihad Versus McWorld” from a decade ago are as insightful and far more sustained in their argument.  This doesn’t mean that Mishra isn’t worth-reading: he is, but he ultimately doesn’t maintain his own argument and seems to think his he shows enough rhyming history, the point will be made for him. 

In short, I am disappointed because this book starts to show how developing world and the West replicate the dialectic of Enlightenment that plagued “the West” itself, and it can’t keep its focus long enough to prove the point. Instead, one gets bloody-history quick cut with dread, which is justified, but with universal theory of the views of progress in trying to explain everything, doesn’t actually explain things very deeply at all.

Pronunciation Changes

Sep. 9th, 2017 11:09 am
lusentoj: (汗)
[personal profile] lusentoj posting in [community profile] learning_japanese
The list of N5 pronunciation changes from the JLPT grammar example list post was getting too long so I decided to put them in their own post instead. Last updated: 2017.09.09

あい、おい、いい —> えー (えぇ) : in manga this usually happens in informal or childish speech but my teachers say in general it's simply showing "the spoken language" (versus the written language).
• いい —> ええ "is good, yes"
• ない —> ねー "is without, -less, non-existing"
• こわい —> こうぇえ "is scary"
• うまい —> うめぇ "is tasty"
• うるさい —> うるせー "is noisy" = shaddap!!
• ぐらい —> ぐれー "around (this time/amount)"
• おもしろい —> おもしれー "is interesting, fun"

い —> ゆ: same as above.
• いく —> ゆく (in most dialects). "goes".
• どう いう —> どう ゆう "what way" (used to mean ex. "what do you mean, what are you saying?").

Read more... )

(no subject)

Sep. 9th, 2017 02:56 pm
pipibluestockin: (Default)
[personal profile] pipibluestockin
I call myself a writer, but I suck at text messaging.  I hover over the correct word to use and by then the conversation has moved on and the spontenaity is well and truely dead. This makes communicating with my sister somewhat difficult. She is a busy mum in a houshold of 7 (2 of which are in-laws that cause just as much grief as the children. Eldest daughter, 16, with social phobia. Daughter, 12, just announced she is gay. Son, 4, is a four year old. Had spat with husband. 

My sister just described the worst week ever in text and really texting when we should be talking doesn't cut it. But some of the things that need to be discussed shouldnt be overheard at her end.  Big mess.