“Love was one of the temporal things in her life, except in so far as she was an artist. She thought of Cleopatra—Cleopatra must have been an artist; she reaped the essential from a man, she harvested the ultimate sensation, and threw away the husk; and Mary Stuart, and the great Rachel, panting with her lovers after the theatre, these were the exoteric exponents of love. After all, what was the lover but fuel for the transport of this subtle knowledge, for a female art, the art of pure, perfect knowledge in this sensuous understanding.”—
“Of course," said Gudrun, "life doesn’t REALLY matter—it is one’s art which is central. What one does in one’s life has peu de raport, it doesn’t signify much." "Yes, that is so, exactly," replied the sculptor. "What one does in one’s life, that is a bagatelle for the outsiders to fuss about.”—
“There is not only no need for our places of work to be ugly, but their ugliness ruins the work, in the end. Men will not go on submitting to such ugliness. In the end it will hurt too much, and they will wither because of it. And this will wither the work as well. They will think the work itself is ugly: the machines, the very act of labour. Whereas the machinery and the acts of labour are extremely, maddeningly beautiful. But this will be the end of our civilisation, when people will not work because work has become so intolerable to their senses, it nauseates them too much, they would rather starve. THEN we shall see the hammer used only for smashing, then we shall see it.”—
Women in Love, D. H. Lawrence, 1920
This is as much a book about art, and the end of the Victorians and Edwardians, as it is about women, or men, or love. The characters are raptly attentive, and sensitive, to the crumbling of the old world and the approach of the “roaring” twenties—the women are liberating themselves, the young men are either stepping back to allow them to do so, or in transports of rage about the girls stepping out of place. Industry is ripping the countryside open, and industrial businessmen are grinding the peasantry down into the machine-parts of the new age. It’s fascinating and incredibly identifiable, if over-unctuous.
“That the charges in the trials often referred to events that had occurred decades earlier, that witchcraft was made a crimen exceptum, that is, a crime to be investigated by special means, torture included, and it was punishable even in the absence of any proven damage to persons and things - all these factors indicate that the target of the witch-hunt - (as it is often true with political repression in times of intense social change and conflict) - were not socially recognized crimes, but previously accepted practices and groups of individuals that had to be eradicated from the community, through terror and criminalization.
In this sense, the charge of witchcraft performed a function similar to that performed by “high treason” (which, significantly, was introduced into the English legal code in the same years), and the charge of “terrorism” in our times. The very vagueness of the charge - the fact that it was impossible to prove it, while at the same time it evoked the maximum of horror - meant that it could be used to punish any form of protest and to generate suspicion even towards the most ordinary aspects of daily life.”
This morning, the New York Times has a very lengthy and detailed article about President Obama’s counter-Terrorism policies based on interviews with “three dozen of his current and former advisers.” I’m writing separately about the numerous revelations contained in that article, but want specifically to highlight this one vital passage about how the Obama administration determines who is a “militant.” The article explains that Obama’s rhetorical emphasis on avoiding civilian deaths “did not significantly change” the drone program, because Obama himself simply expanded the definition of a “militant” to ensure that it includes virtually everyone killed by his drone strikes. Just read this remarkable passage:
Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.
i haven’t reminded you that Obama is a bad president and also a literal war criminal in a while, so here you go.
"but 3," you reply, "he was our last, best hope! we voted him in fair and square! even you voted for him!* are you saying we should vote for ROMNEY instead?!"
nope. just need to point out that voting for any of these hateful nightmare men is a vote for war and destruction and crimes against humanity, no matter what their platform or promises. in the present state of the country there is no way out of this problem. get your signs and your helmets and get into the streets and maybe, maybe it’ll help a little.
*i didn’t, technically, but it doesn’t matter because i certainly WOULD have voted for obama if i had been in the country at the time
If you are implying that by calling both of them cunts, I am gender specifying either of them, you are wrong, and that's OK. If you are calling the word CUNT, a gender specific word, that's your definition, and I don't argue that with you, because it's true, but only in the characterization of someone's anatomy. I could call them Banana trees, and someone would find a gendered meaning in that too. Take it as you will, the message is clear in the post: They are both idiots for very plain reasons
1. sorry dude, “cunt” is a gendered insult and “banana tree” is not. false equivalency. “cunt” means “vagina” and it means “vagina” in a totally negative way. it’s exactly the same as using “faggot”: it’s short for “you are homosexual and it is self-evident that being homosexual is bad, ergo i am insulting you”. swap “homosexual” for “female” in that sentence and it’s the same* thing. it’s not my definition. it’s the literal definition. like, the actual dictionary definition.
2. telling girls they “should” or “should not” wear makeup (or do anything) because in that guy’s opinion, they are suitably physically attractive to him and therefore, ladies, stop wearing lipstick because i don’t like it, is a dumbfuck opinion worthy of denigration and sarcasm, which is exactly what the reply entailed. the entire construct of “hey ladies, i’m a dude and let me tell you what i find attractive and then you should do it” is a bunch of patronizing garbage, no matter what the instructions are. the reason is that it still frames the whole exchange in terms of what women should or should not do in order to be attractive to men. it’s like saying “ladies, i am a feminist, that’s why i dig fat chicks—real women have curves!" dude in the "fat chicks" example might think he’s being cool and progressive or whatever, but what he’s actually doing is projecting his beauty ideals (and instructions about how to achieve them) onto women yet again. it also makes the sort of laughable assumption that the only reason women wear makeup, certain clothes, high heels, or anything else, is because they are trying to attract men, and/or because they’re trying to plaster over some gaping hole in their self-esteem/personality. neither of these things is true, obviously, and making the assumption that they are true casts women and girls as meek, half-witted supplicants at the altar of male opinion.
hope that clears things up about why space boy is a jerk, why the reply from the woman was correct, and also why using “cunt” as a pejorative is not cool any more than using “gay”, “faggot”, “queer”, etc.
I have a lot of good line drawings that would make excellent shirts, it’s just that the majority of them have nipples on them. I assume that would negatively impact sales. I’m not sure if I give a shit or not.
“A police officer fired shots that hit the man, but the attacker kept chewing on the victim’s flesh — more shots were fired, eventually killing him, the Miami Herald said. Television footage showed the two men sprawled on the sidewalk side by side, with the victim barely conscious and covered in blood with up to 75 percent of his face ripped off.”—
Police said an overdose of a powerful new form of LSD could have prompted the attack.
“Whenever we see that a person has taken all of his clothes off and has become violent, it’s indicative of this excited delirium that’s caused by an overdose of drugs,” Armando Aguilar of the Miami Fraternal Order of Police, told WSVN-Fox 7.
“What’s happening is inside their body their organs are burning up alive.”
I like how random jackhole cop spouts unfounded speculation and it’s just uncritically presented as some kind of “expert” opinion in the news report.
They’re dead, they’re all messed up.
Night of the Living Dead cop knew how to keep it simple.
“A police officer fired shots that hit the man, but the attacker kept chewing on the victim’s flesh — more shots were fired, eventually killing him, the Miami Herald said. Television footage showed the two men sprawled on the sidewalk side by side, with the victim barely conscious and covered in blood with up to 75 percent of his face ripped off.”—Miami police kill naked man who bit off victim’s face - Yahoo! News
I’m not sure if you are keen on this method, but deleting the original post still allows other to reblog w/you as the original poster, but only from other sources who’ve reblogged you. You won’t get notifs anymore, but the post won’t be on your blog.
Unfortunately this doesn’t work. I know because the original post IS deleted from my blog, and I still get notifications for it.
A Montreal riot cop speaking about his relish for beating the student protesters. If you don’t know what’s happening in Canada right now, it’s not surprising: just like the mass media blackout of Occupy events, the student protests against tuition rate increases (tens of thousands of protesters strong [and not all of them students, either]) in Montreal and Toronto are being covered up as best as the Canadian government and media can manage it.
I’m posting this just to demonstrate that cruel, stupid, and bloodthirsty police are found everywhere, that they are the rule and not the exception, even in “peaceful”, “socialist” Canada.
does ANYONE have a reliable way to mute certain tumblr post notifications? i have a few megapopular posts that flood my dash 24/7
Tumblr Mute for Greasemonkey does not appear to function as of the new dashboard, and is no longer being supported, as far as I can tell.
edit: Tumblr Saviour does not disappear reblog/likes notifications as far as I know.
edit edit: okay turns out i am an idiot baby moron with an ass for a brain. i needed to hit ENABLE on my Greasemonkey dropdown because the Greasemonkey UI designers thought this was a good way to design their fucking menu:
god damn it
EDIT 3: Tumblr Mute doesn’t remove reblog notifications anyway. FUCK. FUCK ME IN THE GOAT ASS
I have been reading books on philosophy and psychology and fanfiction on the web. I’ve also been spending a lot of time reading blogs on the internet, ranging far and wide. These things have become tangled and I think they are very much related.
My son has a friend that lives three houses away. He will text my son and arrange internet game playing. He won’t walk down the street. He won’t even use his voice on the phone. A text is preferred. I have been trying to understand this behavior, by reading.
This essay, like many of the other considerations of “the internet” by people older than 30 (or people raised in the manner of people older than 30), fails to check its very premise: that the internet is “not real”. That writing a text is somehow, magically, less authentic than, say, passing a note in class. Or even whispering in someone’s ear. That those of us raised online can’t decipher tone or feeling in even the most offhanded typing of our friends and loved ones. That our refusal to “use our voices on the phone” makes us emotional, social, even experiential cripples.
I understand the urge to simplify the new social experience this way, and at a first or even second reading it appears sound, but I deplore the almost flippant conclusions reached by our loving, well-meaning, but ultimately uninformed elders.
This assertion—that the Internet, text messages and so on aren’t “real”, that they somehow “don’t count”—doesn’t stand up to examination, except in the very biological, reductionist sense. If you stand on the belief in a sort of “chemical communication” between adjacent physical bodies, pheromones that somehow sign off on every human exchange face-to-face, stamping a big rubber [AUTHENTIC SOCIALIZING] on every bit of small talk, then sure. But what this steps over entirely is the fact that every mode of communication has its accompanying set of falsehoods, either in projection or perception of the message.
If a friend walks up to me in the street and invites me to a party the next day, my perception of the message benefits (in clarity) from the data contained in their tone of voice, their posture, and their cadence (for example), but suffers from the distraction of being outside, of being in a hurry, of having to pee, of being bored (these are my failings) and also of their lying to me, of their having a cold that makes their voice strange, of their being distracted by their own simultaneous experience there on the street. Each of these facets of the exchange are traded for ones of equal weight when the conversation is moved online. My friend sends me a text, Facebook message, wall post, or Tumblr ask, inviting me to a party. At once I am examining their message for clues—the lack of, or inclusion of capitalized letters, the use of specialized argots within our shared social group, the use of emoticons, injokes, or HTML formatting.
My ability to read—and misread—these clues is as robust, if not moreso, than when confronted with the same exchange in person. The message remains the same. My methods of reading it, of deciphering it, flow from medium to medium, but in no sense is the party invitation “less real” for having come via SMS.
The other issue here, which benefits the digital alone, is the ability to master your own expenditure of time. I just finished reading Ada again, so I’ve been considering Time for days. While my friend approaching me physically on the street is intrusive, in that we both must compromise whatever we are doing in order to fit the exchange into a sort of tyrannical bit of gristle between our separate Timestreams (not that my friend is intruding on me, or even I on them, but more that we both must see the chance to have this exchange about the party invitation, and then both must take it simultaneously in order for the conversation to occur, like two world leaders turning two keys on a nuclear launch authorization, or even a shuttle crew waiting for the right orbital window) which, briefly, allows us to talk. If my friend had sent the invitation via SMS, the message would remain perfectly preserved as it left their fingers, and crash on my shores intact, waiting for me there whenever I most wanted to read it, when I could devote the best eyes to it, when I could think about it most clearly. Digital communication, if not freeing us from Time, certainly lets out our leashes a bit.
To put it another way, digital communication allows my friend to communicate through time with me, which goes a long way towards making sure the meeting of minds occurs when both participants are at their best.
The original essay touches on this, but frames it as an “inferiority complex” issue, which leads inevitably to bullying and trolling, and that children like the author’s son cannot “handle” that the friend that lives a mere three doors down is “too real” to interact with. I think this is not giving the kid enough credit, when he’s clearly smart enough to take advantage of the flexibility in the new (and no less devoted) friendships of his generation.
And truly, the same things were said of the telegram, the telephone, the letter, the parchment, the clay tablet, the cave painting…