|
Don't tell that person about 4-H then. Good program, by the way.
|
# ? Apr 23, 2013 23:26 |
|
|
# ? May 11, 2024 07:29 |
|
Fandyien posted:I only skimmed that whole thing but the first few paragraphs are really weirdly sexual about the young, muscled, nubile boy in question. That's creepy as all gently caress. There's a lot of aesthetic celebration of the male form there, child and adult. Especially when they're nude together. Unworthy of celebration or recognition outside of sexual reproduction: the female body. I think the homoeroticism is largely a function of the outrageous sexism and sexual separatism, rather than the other way around. Maybe these people are so terrified of gays because they really would desire a world with no women. Not because they are sexually attracted to men, but because women are so alien to literally every aspect of life that this fuckhead seems to enjoy and cherish. Did I just crack the code? Conservatives have to hate gays so that they don't drive themselves to homosexuality as a function of their hatred of women?
|
# ? Apr 24, 2013 00:08 |
|
Jack Gladney posted:There's a lot of aesthetic celebration of the male form there, child and adult. Especially when they're nude together. Unworthy of celebration or recognition outside of sexual reproduction: the female body. Kind of, yes. Patriarchy/male supremacy and homoeroticism are pretty much inseparable, and in any society or social group that institutionalized rigid separation of men and women, you're going to see a whole lot of homoeroticism come creeping to the surface. Any guys who's been in a high school or college locker room is aware of this on a basic level: the constant affirmations of heterosexuality and denials of gayness exist precisely because people are aware, even if unconsciously, that there's a homoerotic vibe in the room. Homoeroticism has to be constantly fought off in a patriarchal setting because it's seen as feminine behavior, even though the gap between admiring masculinity and admiring men is so thin as to be functionally nonexistent.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2013 00:31 |
|
So are terrible political blogs of any kind allowed here, or do we stick to stuff that has been published in big magazines?
The Vosgian Beast fucked around with this message at 02:09 on Apr 24, 2013 |
# ? Apr 24, 2013 01:12 |
|
Matt Yglesias with the contrarianism slam dunk!quote:It's very plausible that one reason American workplaces have gotten safer over the decades is that we now tend to outsource a lot of factory-explosion-risk to places like Bangladesh where 87 people just died in a building collapse.* This kind of consideration leads Erik Loomis to the conclusion that we need a unified global standard for safety, by which he does not mean that Bangladeshi levels of workplace safety should be implemented in the United States. http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/04/24/international_factory_safety.html I have no idea if this is satire or not. On one hand, no one could actually think this and be smart enough to produce coherent sentences. On the other hand, Matt Yglesias is an rear end in a top hat.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2013 23:04 |
|
Anthony Esolen posted:creepy poo poo about young boys Don't worry, dude! There are Boy Scout alternatives, like the Christian Service Brigade, to satisfy your evangelical heteronormative brainwashing needs! Also, as a childless woman, I'm not preparing any hypothetical sons specifically to please their even more hypothetical wives. I'd teach them respect for women - letting women make their own decisions without judgment will be a big part of that - and to cook and clean for themselves so they don't have to live a squalid "bachelor" lifestyle if they should end up alone (which will be cool if they choose it!) but I will be damned if I ballroom dance with my pubescent son. That's not as creepy and pseudo-pedophilic as father-son skinny dipping, but mainly because the participants' clothes remain on.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2013 23:31 |
|
Pththya-lyi posted:Don't worry, dude! There are Boy Scout alternatives, like the Christian Service Brigade, to satisfy your evangelical heteronormative brainwashing needs! Well, it's vital for his successful passage through the state of vir futurus that he never become comfortable with the sight of female genitals, so that they might remain terrifying and unknown. At the same time, he must get constant reinforcement that his own are normal, natural, and a sense of great pride. In a healthy time, he could count on seeing tons of dicks--well-respected dicks like the mayor's, his gym teacher's, perhaps that of the president of the chamber of commerce--without anyone thinking it was weird, but this in not a healthy time. Instead, his father must contrive lots of occasions where he can display his dick to him without making it seem like he's contriving an occasion to display his dick. God, the thing that gets me most about this passage is that it describes a social world that no longer exists--that never did exist. The world it takes as normal and time-honored comes entirely from old issues of Reader's Digest and 1950's-era school moral hygiene films. It's like he just came out of a 60-year coma and the first thing he did was pick up a newspaper and read an article about the boy scouts and this was his reply.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2013 23:47 |
|
Badger of Basra posted:Matt Yglesias with the contrarianism slam dunk! Yglesias is an idiot.
|
# ? Apr 25, 2013 00:09 |
|
watt par posted:Yglesias is an idiot. I think he deserves better than that tossed-off dismissal. Sure, this particular piece of his isn't very well thought out, but he does good work with local land use policy, business licensing policy, and immigration. I have to admit that I can't speak to his posts about things like sovereign debt and other high-level economic issues cause my own understanding is fairly basic.
|
# ? Apr 25, 2013 01:07 |
|
Nice Davis posted:I think he deserves better than that tossed-off dismissal. Sure, this particular piece of his isn't very well thought out, but he does good work with local land use policy, business licensing policy, and immigration. I have to admit that I can't speak to his posts about things like sovereign debt and other high-level economic issues cause my own understanding is fairly basic. Rest assured on all other economic topics, he's just as ill-informed.
|
# ? Apr 25, 2013 01:13 |
|
watt par posted:Rest assured on all other economic topics, he's just as ill-informed. If his idiocy is so pervasive, another example should be easy to find. Maybe then we can all share in the private laugh you're having with yourself.
|
# ? Apr 25, 2013 01:20 |
|
VideoTapir posted:If his idiocy is so pervasive, another example should be easy to find. Maybe then we can all share in the private laugh you're having with yourself. Having read several of his other pieces in the last few minutes, I'm left with the view that he's not an idiot, but his pieces are fluff with very little substance. He seems not to support anything he says very well, if at all, and falls back on "I think" or variations on that way too much for my taste.
|
# ? Apr 25, 2013 01:41 |
|
Walter posted:Having read several of his other pieces in the last few minutes, I'm left with the view that he's not an idiot, but his pieces are fluff with very little substance. He seems not to support anything he says very well, if at all, and falls back on "I think" or variations on that way too much for my taste. This is a more valid criticism, one I can get behind. I wish Slate pushed him to do more longform stuff, but they pretty much just pay him to write a bunch of blogposts. Plus longform isn't really Slate's bag anyway.
|
# ? Apr 25, 2013 01:51 |
|
baby oh yeah baby let's get down do that child-making thing
|
# ? Apr 25, 2013 13:46 |
|
My school paper has your typical college republican on its editorial staff. Figured I'd share with you his most recent piece:quote:
|
# ? Apr 25, 2013 16:56 |
|
Erkenntnis posted:My school paper has your typical college republican on its editorial staff. Figured I'd share with you his most recent piece:
|
# ? Apr 25, 2013 17:00 |
|
Guilty Spork posted:At this point if a conservative talks about white privilege you can pretty much assume that they're going to be massively wrong about what it actually means. I think quote:no matter what happens in society, we as white people are free from any sort of stereotype that could give some form of negative connotation towards our race as a whole. I think one of the most interesting things to dissect in American political discourse is how the same terms are understood by the left and right. In this case his definition of privilege isn't really far off from mine, the difference is that I have an explanation for why it's true(structure), while he turns it into an us-versus-them proposition. He even touches on my favorite verbal grenade: "politics/politicizing," where the fact that people have *gasp* motives and desires somehow becomes a devastating indictment. quote:Tim Wise is not educational; his motives are like those of any other politician. He wants people to agree with a liberal agenda, the only difference is because he doesn’t run for public office and calls himself an essayist, and author or an “educator,” he gets away with these things that those kept under a close watch would not. I am completely serious when I say that I don't understand how people that talk about "freedom" and worry about tyranny don't understand basic power relations. There are plenty of people who haven't studied these things and don't care, that's understandable. But if you bang on about this crap day after day I would think you could take two seconds to educate yourself.
|
# ? Apr 25, 2013 17:42 |
|
Douche posted:Now I’ve been called just about every name in the book, including a racist by some though I don’t really know why Take a guess
|
# ? Apr 25, 2013 21:04 |
|
Jack Gladney posted:Unworthy of celebration or recognition outside of sexual reproduction: the female body. I tried reading the whole thing, every single word, until I got the part that talks about the role of men in reproduction: it said something like "they are the sowers, not the field", at which point I couldn't handle it anymore and skimmed the bolded parts. This author thinks women are like a field, like "everyone walks on it and some people put something in it"? That competes for worst metaphor I've ever heard; I'm also reiterate the "this is creepy as gently caress" guy. Edited to avoid double-post Bel_Canto posted:Kind of, yes. Patriarchy/male supremacy and homoeroticism are pretty much inseparable, and in any society or social group that institutionalized rigid separation of men and women, you're going to see a whole lot of homoeroticism come creeping to the surface. Any guys who's been in a high school or college locker room is aware of this on a basic level: the constant affirmations of heterosexuality and denials of gayness exist precisely because people are aware, even if unconsciously, that there's a homoerotic vibe in the room. Homoeroticism has to be constantly fought off in a patriarchal setting because it's seen as feminine behavior, even though the gap between admiring masculinity and admiring men is so thin as to be functionally nonexistent. You also see this in places similar to a college locker room. My old platoon in the army used to have "Gay Tuesdays", where it was entirely acceptable and encouraged (not from the leadership, just the lower enlisted goofing around) for guys to hug, spoon and sexually harass each other by copping feels or making comments. It's just the level of comfort that members of groups like this have with other members of the group that changes how far the "joke" goes. I would not be surprised at all to know similar things happen in police or firemen locker rooms as well. I was a senior specialist at the time and I was always doing real poo poo, so no spooning on a cot or fake boyfriend for me Eulogistics fucked around with this message at 22:41 on Apr 25, 2013 |
# ? Apr 25, 2013 22:30 |
|
Erkenntnis posted:My school paper has your typical college republican on its editorial staff. Figured I'd share with you his most recent piece: Dude was so close to accidentally hitting a legit criticism actual PoC activists have with Tim Wise.
|
# ? Apr 26, 2013 00:33 |
|
Sadly, I've had way better success rates trying to get white people to change their views on racism with Tim Wise articles than anything by a person of color. Articles by PoC normally just get handwaved away with "They're just biased!" accusations without being read at all.
|
# ? Apr 26, 2013 01:41 |
|
Badger of Basra posted:Matt Yglesias with the contrarianism slam dunk! This made my blood boil, not only because this is the exact argument used by people who are crypto- sweatshop supporters (as opposed to merely accepting their existence as a short-term necessary evil), but because Yglesias didn't have the temerity to face the ugliness of his opinion in the face. The original title of this piece is "Foreign Factories Should Be More Dangerous," instead of "Different Places Have Different Safety Rules and That's OK." Seriously. What the gently caress was he thinking with that original title?
|
# ? Apr 26, 2013 01:45 |
|
watt par posted:Dude was so close to accidentally hitting a legit criticism actual PoC activists have with Tim Wise. I don't know a ton about the issue.but I like to learn- what is that criticism?
|
# ? Apr 26, 2013 02:03 |
|
A woman disappears and this reporter decides to write an article filled with nothing but negativity about her and her life. I share the same last name with the reporter but I'm blessedly not related to him. http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/metro/1124977-missing-woman-battled-addiction#.UXfofO7J--c.twitter Dan Arsenault posted:A Tantallon woman who has been missing since March has had a long battle with drug addiction, The Chronicle Herald has learned.
|
# ? Apr 26, 2013 02:17 |
|
Boxman posted:I don't know a ton about the issue.but I like to learn- what is that criticism? Here's a pretty good and often self-critical piece by Ewuare Osayande on not just Wise, but white anti-racist activism in general. To be fair, Wise is pretty good about acknowledging the problems himself, which are in part beyond his control.
|
# ? Apr 26, 2013 02:31 |
|
Erkenntnis posted:My school paper has your typical college republican on its editorial staff. Figured I'd share with you his most recent piece: His brain shut off the moment Wise started saying Reagan=bad. Every incident he mentions was cited. This is my favorite: quote:And when Reagan made up yet another story about some “strapping young buck” buying T-bone steaks with food stamps, he didn’t specify the “buck’s” race, so if you see a black man in your mind’s eye, it’s obviously because you are the one with the problem. Why, for all you know, when Reagan said “buck,” he might have been referring to a large deer. You obviously have race on the brain! "Buck" doesn't have any racial connota-- http://www.google.com.hk/search?q=%22buck+friend of the family%22&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1 quote:Buck or buck friend of the family was also used during the enslavement era for a black man, especially a young strong one, and thus may connote sexuality. quote:His own account of his first encounter with a black man is very revealing: 'A certain enormous buck friend of the family encountered in Haiti fixed my conception of blind, furious, unreasoning rage, as manifested in the human animal to the end of my days. quote:Maybe Tharin wants his daughter "amalgamated," but do you want your own daughters forced into bed with a big black "buck-friend of the family"? What about it, you poor whites? Didn't he say it would be the "rich man's buck-friend of the family and the poor man's daughter?
|
# ? Apr 26, 2013 03:01 |
|
VideoTapir posted:His brain shut off the moment Wise started saying Reagan=bad. Every incident he mentions was cited. This is my favorite: I will admit I never knew any of that, thank you. There isn't a big enough for the amount of ignorance on display in that letter.
|
# ? Apr 26, 2013 04:31 |
|
quote:How is it to be a young minimum wage worker starting out compared to historical quality of life? Man, being poor sounds awesome! I don't know what to say other than that I can only hope this is satire, but I don't think it is. I know better than to read internet comments, what's wrong with me?
|
# ? Apr 29, 2013 18:23 |
|
hakarl posted:Man, being poor sounds awesome! In some cases, the author's correct, though a lot of it predates 1912 for rich people. Running water existed from the early 1900s, though the copper pipes were expensive so it was usually left for public buildings; still, it wouldn't be surprising to find the rich using the water system. Milk chocolate was on sale from about 1875, and chocolate in general was first sold in the States around 1850 (England confectioners developed a chocolate bar for general consumption in 1847), so it was certainly around (again, for the rich) in 1912. Of course this is more a statement on how far we've come technologically as a society than anything else. Being poor sucks no matter when you do it! This is just a long-winded take on the '99.6% of 'poor' families have a refrigerator!' picture, which is why it's so aggravating.
|
# ? Apr 29, 2013 20:32 |
|
Some loving moron posted:Cold, poorly fed, and chronically sick, a Turn-of-the-Century Billionaire Baron
|
# ? Apr 30, 2013 02:23 |
|
Someone send him John Scalzi's blog entry, "Being Poor."quote:Being poor is knowing exactly how much everything costs. Actually, send it to everyone, everywhere.
|
# ? Apr 30, 2013 02:28 |
|
The author also seems to have forgotten about the existence of railroads. Not hard to do if he's an American, I guess. Also he's looking at average life expectancy without considering the effect of infant mortality. Once you got to be a robber baron, you were past the highest risk of untimely death. If you didn't die as a small child, you were probably looking at 3 score and ten. I doubt there's a single sentence in there which isn't at least obliquely wrong if you want to put in the effort to research it.
|
# ? Apr 30, 2013 02:30 |
|
quote:Being poor is hoping the toothache goes away. And resigning yourself to regular agony otherwise.
|
# ? Apr 30, 2013 02:31 |
|
VideoTapir posted:The author also seems to have forgotten about the existence of railroads. Not hard to do if he's an American, I guess. In what way are you saying he did? Most people in 1912 America rarely used railroads for travel, due to living in rural areas and not having any kind of need to do so. And the fares could be quite pricy even if there was a reason to.
|
# ? Apr 30, 2013 02:33 |
|
Install Gentoo posted:In what way are you saying he did? Most people in 1912 America rarely used railroads for travel, due to living in rural areas and not having any kind of need to do so. And the fares could be quite pricy even if there was a reason to. The wealthy didn't tend to live in rural areas. He's comparing the wealthy of 100 years ago to the poor of today. Pope Guilty posted:And resigning yourself to regular agony otherwise. Most of the items on that list are either about fear that something bad might happen, or about something bad with an inevitable consequence that is worse. The impact for anyone with the least bit of empathy or experience with ANY item on that list is diminished if you spell it out. 'Course, I suspect the average Randroid would need it spelled out for them. I'd love to see some right-wing reactions to that essay. edit: Oh, why didn't I think of this sooner, freep, you never disappoint me by failing to disappoint me: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2776509/posts http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2718392/replies?c=27 VideoTapir fucked around with this message at 02:45 on Apr 30, 2013 |
# ? Apr 30, 2013 02:37 |
|
Dear loving god this response. Every point missed. No understanding of what everything costs. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2718392/replies?c=27 quote:Not Being Poor
|
# ? Apr 30, 2013 02:47 |
|
VideoTapir posted:The wealthy didn't tend to live in rural areas. He's comparing the wealthy of 100 years ago to the poor of today. By 1912 the wealthy would roll in their private cars with fancy drivers for 'em. To slum it on a regular train would be gauche to say the least, even first class.
|
# ? Apr 30, 2013 02:48 |
|
Install Gentoo posted:By 1912 the wealthy would roll in their private cars with fancy drivers for 'em. To slum it on a regular train would be gauche to say the least, even first class. Hell, they could have their own plane by 1912! The Titanic, which would have crossed the Atlantic in a week, was an example of 1912 mobility. It's more of a comparison of a middle class person and someone from 2 centuries ago, and even then, the 1812 baron had a better life than their 1912 one.
|
# ? Apr 30, 2013 03:08 |
|
Free Republic posted:...move far away from the freeway. How does he imagine a poor person will actually take that? "Oh, silly me! Of course I can move away from the freeway! After all, costs of living are the same everywhere. I can't imagine what I was even worried about." E: Free Republic posted:...buy a month’s worth of rice for the price of one short-lived box of Raisin Bran. Pththya-lyi fucked around with this message at 03:47 on Apr 30, 2013 |
# ? Apr 30, 2013 03:32 |
|
|
# ? May 11, 2024 07:29 |
|
Pththya-lyi posted:How does he imagine a poor person will actually take that? quote:...suffer from fecal impaction. NotgonnaWebMDthatnotgonnaWebMDthatohsweetjesuswhydidIlookthatup
|
# ? Apr 30, 2013 03:46 |