![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
via https://ift.tt/2ywuynM
ac-fairytail:
imsoshive:
Know the difference
:))))))
(Your picture was not posted)
ac-fairytail:
imsoshive:
Know the difference
:))))))
(Your picture was not posted)
via https://ift.tt/2JvwjFI
socialismoffools:
schraubd:
Carrie Rickey has a fabulous article in the Forward documenting Hollywood’s history of casting non-Jews to play Jews (alongside the famous propensity of Jewish actors to change their name in a goyish direction – paging Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz). I was a bit surprised it didn’t mention the most recent example of this – the non-Jewish Rachel Brosnahan cast as the lead in the exceptionally Jewish Marvelous Mrs. Maisel. I did recall reading at least a few murmurs of discontent about this, though the general vibe among the Jews I know is that it’s a great performance on a great show.
Anyway, the paradox Rickey identifies in her article is that many of the Hollywood moguls who resolutely refused to cast Jews in Jewish parts (and often tried to avoid Jewish themes altogether) were themselves Jewish. What gives? The answer is that these Jews were convinced “that movies about Jews would incite anti-Semitism” – they wanted at all costs to avoid the sense that they were tribalistic, or insular, or that Hollywood was (as it was in the antisemitic imagination) a “Jewish” front. One upshot of this was that the people freest to produce movies about Jews were the non-Jews. Another, of course, was that non-Jews were considered less objectionable or dangerous choices to play what Jewish roles their were.
There’s actually a parallel to the academic world here. Academia in the United States has certainly had a robust Jewish presence, but for many years these Jews almost never wrote on Jewish topics (see here for how this played out in Anthropology). Jews were in fact specifically counseled to avoid such matters, lest they be seen as provincial or tribal. And so for the most part, we wrote on other things. Even now, when there’s been a flowering of “identity” research in academia (e.g., “ethnic studies”), Jewish Studies have lagged considerably behind – again, a fact belied by the raw numbers of Jews in academia (on that score, we continue to be just fine). I can tell you I’ve been counseled on more than one occasion – albeit with varying degrees of explicitness – to downplay or cover the Jewish elements of my research agenda. So this is ongoing.
via The Debate Link https://ift.tt/2Jq1uCs
When I was in grad school, the Socialist sociology students (nice alliteration) would caution people to avoid this one particular professor because he was a “Zionist” who wrote about 19th century German anti Semitism. Of course, the prof in question was the nicest dude and dedicated a bunch of his time to supporting graduate student activism and their push for a union.
(Your picture was not posted)
socialismoffools:
schraubd:
Carrie Rickey has a fabulous article in the Forward documenting Hollywood’s history of casting non-Jews to play Jews (alongside the famous propensity of Jewish actors to change their name in a goyish direction – paging Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz). I was a bit surprised it didn’t mention the most recent example of this – the non-Jewish Rachel Brosnahan cast as the lead in the exceptionally Jewish Marvelous Mrs. Maisel. I did recall reading at least a few murmurs of discontent about this, though the general vibe among the Jews I know is that it’s a great performance on a great show.
Anyway, the paradox Rickey identifies in her article is that many of the Hollywood moguls who resolutely refused to cast Jews in Jewish parts (and often tried to avoid Jewish themes altogether) were themselves Jewish. What gives? The answer is that these Jews were convinced “that movies about Jews would incite anti-Semitism” – they wanted at all costs to avoid the sense that they were tribalistic, or insular, or that Hollywood was (as it was in the antisemitic imagination) a “Jewish” front. One upshot of this was that the people freest to produce movies about Jews were the non-Jews. Another, of course, was that non-Jews were considered less objectionable or dangerous choices to play what Jewish roles their were.
There’s actually a parallel to the academic world here. Academia in the United States has certainly had a robust Jewish presence, but for many years these Jews almost never wrote on Jewish topics (see here for how this played out in Anthropology). Jews were in fact specifically counseled to avoid such matters, lest they be seen as provincial or tribal. And so for the most part, we wrote on other things. Even now, when there’s been a flowering of “identity” research in academia (e.g., “ethnic studies”), Jewish Studies have lagged considerably behind – again, a fact belied by the raw numbers of Jews in academia (on that score, we continue to be just fine). I can tell you I’ve been counseled on more than one occasion – albeit with varying degrees of explicitness – to downplay or cover the Jewish elements of my research agenda. So this is ongoing.
via The Debate Link https://ift.tt/2Jq1uCs
When I was in grad school, the Socialist sociology students (nice alliteration) would caution people to avoid this one particular professor because he was a “Zionist” who wrote about 19th century German anti Semitism. Of course, the prof in question was the nicest dude and dedicated a bunch of his time to supporting graduate student activism and their push for a union.
(Your picture was not posted)
via https://ift.tt/2kw4sal
xtremecaffeine:
iwilleatyourenglish:
imatrisk:
What happened to George Takei’s sexual assault allegations?
the accuser has since admitted it wasn’t true after people started picking apart his story and finding inconsistencies. george takei has forgiven him.
unfortunately, with every movement, there is a chance for a liar to try to join. i feel terrible, because i initially believed it.
it’s a good thing for accusations to be taken seriously, even if we think the accusations are untrue or we like the accused.
(Your picture was not posted)
xtremecaffeine:
iwilleatyourenglish:
imatrisk:
What happened to George Takei’s sexual assault allegations?
the accuser has since admitted it wasn’t true after people started picking apart his story and finding inconsistencies. george takei has forgiven him.
unfortunately, with every movement, there is a chance for a liar to try to join. i feel terrible, because i initially believed it.
it’s a good thing for accusations to be taken seriously, even if we think the accusations are untrue or we like the accused.
(Your picture was not posted)
via https://ift.tt/2q9qRwJ
eclipsebykimlipmp3:
soyeahso:
I’ve had a couple of people ask me how to track anons, as far as figuring out if it’s the same anon sending you multiple messages, or someone returning. Sometimes it’s easy because of writing style, but a lot of the time it all sounds the same, and it’s good to have some kind of confirmation.
The first thing you’ll need to do is install Statcounter on your blog. Their instructions are pretty clear and they walk you through it so much better than I ever could, so start there.
You’ll also need new x-kit, with the timestamps extension installed.
So you have an anon that was sent at 8:32 am. Go to Statcounter and click on Visitor Paths in the side bar. This displays information for individuals who visited your blog, and what pages they went to, including the time of their visit, location, and IP.
Notice how this very enthusiastic Ben Solo fan visited my /ask at 8:31 am. If there are no other visits to that page at that time, it’s pretty clear this is your culprit.
What I usually do, with hateful anons, is give them a tag, which you can do by clicking on the tag icon next to their IP address. Then it’s clear when they’ve returned or when they’re lurking.
It’s still very limited, because a person may be sending anons from multiple places with different IP addresses, but I’ve been able to identify that most of the regular hate I’ve gotten has come from a relatively small number of people.
One caveat about Statcounter is that it can make you kind of paranoid for a minute when you first get it. It can feel weird when you see someone like, looking through 10 pages of one of your thirst tags. But for the most part, I just try to remind myself that they’re more likely to be interested in my content than they are trying to dig up dirt.
Hopefully this was clear. Let me know if you have any questions or suggestions.
this is really useful and i used this a lot a while back when i was getting wayy more hate. if you’re worried about an abuser or family member checking your blog this is realllllllllly good
(Your picture was not posted)
eclipsebykimlipmp3:
soyeahso:
I’ve had a couple of people ask me how to track anons, as far as figuring out if it’s the same anon sending you multiple messages, or someone returning. Sometimes it’s easy because of writing style, but a lot of the time it all sounds the same, and it’s good to have some kind of confirmation.
The first thing you’ll need to do is install Statcounter on your blog. Their instructions are pretty clear and they walk you through it so much better than I ever could, so start there.
You’ll also need new x-kit, with the timestamps extension installed.
So you have an anon that was sent at 8:32 am. Go to Statcounter and click on Visitor Paths in the side bar. This displays information for individuals who visited your blog, and what pages they went to, including the time of their visit, location, and IP.
Notice how this very enthusiastic Ben Solo fan visited my /ask at 8:31 am. If there are no other visits to that page at that time, it’s pretty clear this is your culprit.
What I usually do, with hateful anons, is give them a tag, which you can do by clicking on the tag icon next to their IP address. Then it’s clear when they’ve returned or when they’re lurking.
It’s still very limited, because a person may be sending anons from multiple places with different IP addresses, but I’ve been able to identify that most of the regular hate I’ve gotten has come from a relatively small number of people.
One caveat about Statcounter is that it can make you kind of paranoid for a minute when you first get it. It can feel weird when you see someone like, looking through 10 pages of one of your thirst tags. But for the most part, I just try to remind myself that they’re more likely to be interested in my content than they are trying to dig up dirt.
Hopefully this was clear. Let me know if you have any questions or suggestions.
this is really useful and i used this a lot a while back when i was getting wayy more hate. if you’re worried about an abuser or family member checking your blog this is realllllllllly good
(Your picture was not posted)
via http://ift.tt/2EamZEV
“If kids can’t socialize, who should parents blame? Simple: They should blame themselves. This is the argument advanced in It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens, by Microsoft researcher Danah Boyd. Boyd—full disclosure, a friend of mine—has spent a decade interviewing hundreds of teens about their online lives.
What she has found, over and over, is that teenagers would love to socialize face-to-face with their friends. But adult society won’t let them. “Teens aren’t addicted to social media. They’re addicted to each other,” Boyd says. “They’re not allowed to hang out the way you and I did, so they’ve moved it online.”
It’s true. As a teenager in the early ’80s I could roam pretty widely with my friends, as long as we were back by dark. But over the next three decades, the media began delivering a metronomic diet of horrifying but rare child-abduction stories, and parents shortened the leash on their kids. Politicians warned of incipient waves of youth wilding and superpredators (neither of which emerged). Municipalities crafted anti-loitering laws and curfews to keep young people from congregating alone. New neighborhoods had fewer public spaces. Crime rates plummeted, but moral panic soared. Meanwhile, increased competition to get into college meant well-off parents began heavily scheduling their kids’ after-school lives.
The result, Boyd discovered, is that today’s teens have neither the time nor the freedom to hang out. So their avid migration to social media is a rational response to a crazy situation. They’d rather socialize F2F, so long as it’s unstructured and away from grown-ups. “I don’t care where,” one told Boyd wistfully, “just not home.””
- Don’t Blame Social Media if Your Teen Is Unsocial. It’s Your Fault | Wired Opinion | Wired.com (via brutereason)
(Your picture was not posted)
“If kids can’t socialize, who should parents blame? Simple: They should blame themselves. This is the argument advanced in It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens, by Microsoft researcher Danah Boyd. Boyd—full disclosure, a friend of mine—has spent a decade interviewing hundreds of teens about their online lives.
What she has found, over and over, is that teenagers would love to socialize face-to-face with their friends. But adult society won’t let them. “Teens aren’t addicted to social media. They’re addicted to each other,” Boyd says. “They’re not allowed to hang out the way you and I did, so they’ve moved it online.”
It’s true. As a teenager in the early ’80s I could roam pretty widely with my friends, as long as we were back by dark. But over the next three decades, the media began delivering a metronomic diet of horrifying but rare child-abduction stories, and parents shortened the leash on their kids. Politicians warned of incipient waves of youth wilding and superpredators (neither of which emerged). Municipalities crafted anti-loitering laws and curfews to keep young people from congregating alone. New neighborhoods had fewer public spaces. Crime rates plummeted, but moral panic soared. Meanwhile, increased competition to get into college meant well-off parents began heavily scheduling their kids’ after-school lives.
The result, Boyd discovered, is that today’s teens have neither the time nor the freedom to hang out. So their avid migration to social media is a rational response to a crazy situation. They’d rather socialize F2F, so long as it’s unstructured and away from grown-ups. “I don’t care where,” one told Boyd wistfully, “just not home.””
- Don’t Blame Social Media if Your Teen Is Unsocial. It’s Your Fault | Wired Opinion | Wired.com (via brutereason)
(Your picture was not posted)
‘Allah’ Is Found on Viking Funeral
Dec. 24th, 2017 07:05 pmvia http://ift.tt/2l5Eqe1:
‘Allah’ Is Found on Viking Funeral Clothes:
thantos1991:
brainstatic:
Shhh, do you hear that? It’s every white supremacist screaming all at once.
And a glorious sound it is.
(Your picture was not posted)
‘Allah’ Is Found on Viking Funeral Clothes:
thantos1991:
brainstatic:
Shhh, do you hear that? It’s every white supremacist screaming all at once.
And a glorious sound it is.
(Your picture was not posted)
via http://ift.tt/2wUOWtQ:
30-days-of-pride:
femmealenko:
burntcoffeeandpercocetsss:
I LOVE THIS
IVE BEEN SEARCHING FOR A NB PARENTAL TITLE FOR YEARS
this means the world to me
For our non binary peeps who are looking for a gender neutral parent term!
(Your picture was not posted)
30-days-of-pride:
femmealenko:
burntcoffeeandpercocetsss:
I LOVE THIS
IVE BEEN SEARCHING FOR A NB PARENTAL TITLE FOR YEARS
this means the world to me
For our non binary peeps who are looking for a gender neutral parent term!
(Your picture was not posted)
odinsblog:Something for all the “But Mike
Jun. 4th, 2017 05:38 amvia http://ift.tt/2qORFWb:
odinsblog:
Something for all the “But Mike Pence!!!” types still arguing that we shouldn’t try to impeach Trump.(article)
(Your picture was not posted)
odinsblog:
Something for all the “But Mike Pence!!!” types still arguing that we shouldn’t try to impeach Trump.(article)
(Your picture was not posted)
via http://ift.tt/2pnXyVF:
hopehufflepuff:
glassgynoid:
happenstancewriter:
gayshanewalsh:
some dude on survivor outed another survivor who happened to be trans and called it “deception” like this was some damn soap opera and everyone was like ”lmao that’s personal and not your fucking problem?” and the host immediately said “We don’t need to vote, just grab your torch” and had him kicked off. that’s some instant fucking karma.
and then they let it air and outed someone to everyone ??
Yeah, they still aired it. I bet any money they knew he was trans and were counting on that coming up, perhaps only for tokenism rather than drama, but I have doubts.
Just coz they played the role of “look what such good allies we all are” doesn’t mean they didn’t just exploit a trans person and leverage transantagonism for ratings.
Zeke applied for the show without telling them he was trans because he wanted to be Zeke the survivor contestant and not just the trans survivor contestant. It was after the producers contacted him to say they were interested in casting him that he revealed it only to the producers. So yeah, they knew he was trans, but not because of the drama or as a token, they were already going to cast him before they knew because he wanted to make sure he wasn’t cast just to be a token.
Zeke and Jeff Probst (the host) had talked about how he would be able to decide whether or not he wanted the fact that he’s trans to be part of his story and when it would be revealed on the show if it would be revealed. Unfortunately, he couldn’t pick when because Varner outed him.
They kept it in the show because Zeke wanted it to be aired. Zeke got to decide with the producers and the help of GLAAD how the episode would be handled and they had been discussing it since the tribal council happened when the show was filmed 8 or 9 months ago up until it aired yesterday. He was happy that because his tribemates came to his defense and he was able to speak about his own feelings about what happened that something positive came out of a horrible situation and that’s partly why he wanted it aired.
Here’s an interview he did on The Talk earlier today where he talks about how he felt and why it was still aired. And here’s the essay he wrote for the Hollywood Reporter. In the tribal council (7:33-9:30) he talked about his feelings of wanting to be just Zeke the contestant when he applied to the show.
(Your picture was not posted)
hopehufflepuff:
glassgynoid:
happenstancewriter:
gayshanewalsh:
some dude on survivor outed another survivor who happened to be trans and called it “deception” like this was some damn soap opera and everyone was like ”lmao that’s personal and not your fucking problem?” and the host immediately said “We don’t need to vote, just grab your torch” and had him kicked off. that’s some instant fucking karma.
and then they let it air and outed someone to everyone ??
Yeah, they still aired it. I bet any money they knew he was trans and were counting on that coming up, perhaps only for tokenism rather than drama, but I have doubts.
Just coz they played the role of “look what such good allies we all are” doesn’t mean they didn’t just exploit a trans person and leverage transantagonism for ratings.
Zeke applied for the show without telling them he was trans because he wanted to be Zeke the survivor contestant and not just the trans survivor contestant. It was after the producers contacted him to say they were interested in casting him that he revealed it only to the producers. So yeah, they knew he was trans, but not because of the drama or as a token, they were already going to cast him before they knew because he wanted to make sure he wasn’t cast just to be a token.
Zeke and Jeff Probst (the host) had talked about how he would be able to decide whether or not he wanted the fact that he’s trans to be part of his story and when it would be revealed on the show if it would be revealed. Unfortunately, he couldn’t pick when because Varner outed him.
They kept it in the show because Zeke wanted it to be aired. Zeke got to decide with the producers and the help of GLAAD how the episode would be handled and they had been discussing it since the tribal council happened when the show was filmed 8 or 9 months ago up until it aired yesterday. He was happy that because his tribemates came to his defense and he was able to speak about his own feelings about what happened that something positive came out of a horrible situation and that’s partly why he wanted it aired.
Here’s an interview he did on The Talk earlier today where he talks about how he felt and why it was still aired. And here’s the essay he wrote for the Hollywood Reporter. In the tribal council (7:33-9:30) he talked about his feelings of wanting to be just Zeke the contestant when he applied to the show.
(Your picture was not posted)
via http://ift.tt/2ksrEIy:Why Is AriZona Iced Tea Cheaper Than Water?:
robertnaytor:
linguisticparadox:
kingjaffejoffer:
Despite being a bladder-shattering 23.5 ounces, cans of AriZona iced tea have never wavered from the 99-cent price point introduced shortly after the drink debuted in 1992. It’s even printed on the label as a way of warding off sugar-water price gouging by retailers.
The fact that AriZona has been able to resist inflation for nearly a quarter-century is impressive. The fact that the cans usually wind up being cheaper than smaller soft drinks is also impressive, until you begin to realize how strange it is that a vat of iced tea and its accompanying ingredients somehow manages to be less expensive than plain water.
In a recent interview with Thrillist, AriZona chief marketing officer and co-owner Spencer Vultaggio shed some light on this convenience store mystery.
Unlike water titans Coke (which distributes Dasani), Evian, or Fiji, AriZona has virtually no advertising dollars invested in their teas. “We feel like it’s more important to spend money on something that our customer really cares about, instead of buying billboards or putting our cans in the hands of some celebrity for a few minutes,” Vultaggio said.
Even with a frugal approach to ads, AriZona still has to deal with rising production costs. To help resist increasing prices to compensate, the company has pursued alternative manufacturing methods, using 40 percent less aluminum in cans and having enough factories dotting the country to make transportation more efficient. Bottled water, in contrast, is sometimes sourced from abroad, making for exorbitant shipping costs.
In the end, it’s not the iced tea that’s more economical than the water; it’s that the container it comes in is simply cheaper to produce and transport. And while AriZona isn’t above charging a premium for fancier drinks—like a tea brewed with oak chips that sells for twice the price—their branding depends heavily on those familiar rows of 99-cent cans and the loyal consumers who keep reaching for them.
Interesting!
I’m glad to know there wasn’t something sinister involved, because I love this stuff and I drink it all the time.
robertnaytor:
linguisticparadox:
kingjaffejoffer:
Despite being a bladder-shattering 23.5 ounces, cans of AriZona iced tea have never wavered from the 99-cent price point introduced shortly after the drink debuted in 1992. It’s even printed on the label as a way of warding off sugar-water price gouging by retailers.
The fact that AriZona has been able to resist inflation for nearly a quarter-century is impressive. The fact that the cans usually wind up being cheaper than smaller soft drinks is also impressive, until you begin to realize how strange it is that a vat of iced tea and its accompanying ingredients somehow manages to be less expensive than plain water.
In a recent interview with Thrillist, AriZona chief marketing officer and co-owner Spencer Vultaggio shed some light on this convenience store mystery.
Unlike water titans Coke (which distributes Dasani), Evian, or Fiji, AriZona has virtually no advertising dollars invested in their teas. “We feel like it’s more important to spend money on something that our customer really cares about, instead of buying billboards or putting our cans in the hands of some celebrity for a few minutes,” Vultaggio said.
Even with a frugal approach to ads, AriZona still has to deal with rising production costs. To help resist increasing prices to compensate, the company has pursued alternative manufacturing methods, using 40 percent less aluminum in cans and having enough factories dotting the country to make transportation more efficient. Bottled water, in contrast, is sometimes sourced from abroad, making for exorbitant shipping costs.
In the end, it’s not the iced tea that’s more economical than the water; it’s that the container it comes in is simply cheaper to produce and transport. And while AriZona isn’t above charging a premium for fancier drinks—like a tea brewed with oak chips that sells for twice the price—their branding depends heavily on those familiar rows of 99-cent cans and the loyal consumers who keep reaching for them.
Interesting!
I’m glad to know there wasn’t something sinister involved, because I love this stuff and I drink it all the time.
