'We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases."
Weirdness— When doing spoken-voice transcription into this Korean smartphone, it types in "Covid-19" when it hears only "Covid," as if it doesn't want to risk any confusion about which global pandemic is being discussed.
Now, that's solar power I can get behind. In space, the sun is always shining.
I R A Darth Aggie
at May 18, 2020 10:51 AM
A new book on Operation Market Garden. From the review:
I am often asked by lecture audiences whether Arnhem could have worked, and earn a cheap laugh by responding, “Yes—against the Italians.” But not the Germans. Like I said, they were better.
Oh. I think Lewis Carroll had some thoughts on that.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
I R A Darth Aggie
at May 18, 2020 12:34 PM
"Trust us", they said. "We've got this", they said. Uh huh.
Some 108 million people in China’s northeast region are being plunged back under lockdown conditions as a new and growing cluster of infections causes a backslide in the nation’s return to normal.
In an abrupt reversal of the re-opening taking place across the nation, cities in Jilin province have cut off trains and buses, shut schools and quarantined tens of thousands of people. The strict measures have dismayed many residents who had thought the worst of the nation’s epidemic was over.
MIT Professor Sherry Turkle appears early on. Later, there's an Armenian writer who's been called "the new Franz Kafka." In the last third, there's an interview with an Amish seamstress in Indiana, who keeps a very necessary phone outside her house, for her business. Plus the Icelandic politician Birgitta Jónsdóttir. Mark Zuckerberg appears too, but I don't know yet if he gets interviewed.
Lenona
at May 18, 2020 1:21 PM
From Fauldi's piece:
...In my online searches, I encountered some feminists who seemed genuinely to subscribe to the phrase. But overwhelmingly, the Twitterati deploying the phrase were conservatives, wielding it as a whip. Why?
Because the right knows what #MeToo activists do well to keep in mind: Peril lies in purity. If the pluralism of the women’s movement can be reduced to rigid boilerplate in the public mind, then the future of #MeToo will have more to lose from a single untruthful woman whom it’s sworn to defend than from boatloads of predatory men...
...This is why “Believe All Women” is not an amplification of “Believe Women,” but its negation. As Mr. Morales Henry at the Schlesinger Library told me, after several days of analyzing the use of the two hashtags, “It looks like #BelieveAllWomen, especially recently, is being used in opposition to #BelieveWomen.” Its use spikes on occasions when allegations are made against a liberal politician — often with companion hashtags decrying a double standard...
____________________________
Btw, this iPad won't let me view the comments - there are only 62 at the moment. If someone would like to post a few, I'd be very grateful.
Lenona
at May 18, 2020 1:34 PM
More importantly, from the same piece (plenty of links included):
...Feminism has, indeed, believed many things about “all women.” That all women are deserving of equal treatment under the law, equal pay in the workplace, reproductive health, freedom from domestic violence. And feminists have long held that “all women” should be believed when the “all” refers to all categories of women — i.e., equal regardless of race, religion or economic status. This is what Anita Hill meant when she said in a CNN town hall in 2017, “And until we can believe all women, every woman’s voice has value, none of us really will be seen as equal.” Read her comments in full, and it’s clear she wasn’t giving equal credence to every individual woman, but equal standing to women of “all races, all ages, all sizes, all backgrounds.”
Good luck finding any feminist who thinks we should believe everything all women say — even what they say about sexual assault. History offers ample evidence of the horrors that can ensue when a woman or a man is believed who shouldn’t be: Remember the Scottsboro Boys?
Since at least the late ’90s, gotcha conservativism’s specialty has been condemning feminists for failing to live up to their dogmatist label. First, caricature feminists as a bunch of groupthink totalitarians, then accuse them of hypocrisy every time they are not in lock step. But guess what? Feminism has never, for five minutes, been about lock step. If anything, we tend to be at each other’s throats more often than we’re marching in ranks. And that’s on subjects from comparable worth to women in combat to pornography to #MeToo, where feminists from Margaret Atwood to yours truly have argued for proportion and due process. The broad spectrum of opinion within feminism is one of its strengths, not a frailty. If feminists see distinctions between Anita Hill, Monica Lewinsky, Christine Blasey Ford and Tara Reade, I’d say they’re doing their jobs. That’s not hypocrisy, that’s integrity.
The ultimate hypocrisy would be a women’s movement that rallies behind the banner of reductive hashtags about what every woman thinks. Feminism was birthed out of a desire that women be treated as individuals, not as a cookie-cutter ideal or a faceless stereotype. When I searched databases for women’s actual statements on “believe all women,” what I found were appeals by women not to be defined in universal terms — “I do not believe all women are born with the desire to reproduce” or “I don’t believe all women’s interests are the same” — and outrage at attempts to categorize their sex.
This is why the preferred hashtag of the #MeToo movement is #BelieveWomen. It’s different without the “all.” Believing women is simply the rejoinder to the ancient practice of #DoubtWomen...
(snip)
Lenona
at May 18, 2020 1:45 PM
From Bratfree (once again, Yahoo won't let me read the comments):
"Parents willing to risk death for a break from their kids"
"A PNB (parent, not breeder) is being pressured to have playdates start up with her kid involved and she is worried about COVID."
LoveToLurk
May 18, 2020 01:47PM
"There are quite a few butthurt breeders in the comments, insulting this woman.
"This is part of why I don’t want kids - you have to interact with parents breeders. How this woman is governing her own family has no effect on their kids. It’s not about the play date, it’s that they want the validation of her making the same decision as them. It never ends with them."
On the "... it’s that they want the validation of her making the same decision as them. It never ends with them." I've seen that. But as is obliquely implied in the statement it doesn't matter if they have kids or don't. They are busy bodies. If they never have kids or after their kids have long fled the house they will still be busy bodies. Keeping up with the Jones and whining about the paint job on someone else's house.
As for the willing to risk death to get away from their kids bit, they are at greater risk of death every time they get into a car. Some risks you learn to live with.
Young on women & Covid...
To wit.
Weirdness— When doing spoken-voice transcription into this Korean smartphone, it types in "Covid-19" when it hears only "Covid," as if it doesn't want to risk any confusion about which global pandemic is being discussed.
Crid at May 17, 2020 11:28 PM
• A month later, this still tickles.
• An excuse worth stealing.
Crid at May 18, 2020 1:58 AM
Go ahead, arrest them all.
https://twitter.com/virginianpilot/status/1261842154122608640
I R A Darth Aggie at May 18, 2020 10:40 AM
The Air Force has launched the X-37B reusable vehicle. Among other things:
https://news.yahoo.com/next-mission-secretive-x-37b-180600902.html
Now, that's solar power I can get behind. In space, the sun is always shining.
I R A Darth Aggie at May 18, 2020 10:51 AM
A new book on Operation Market Garden. From the review:
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2020/05/28/battle-arnhem-botch-rhine/
I R A Darth Aggie at May 18, 2020 11:15 AM
https://twitter.com/TruthAbtChina/status/1262264291509579776
Sixclaws at May 18, 2020 11:46 AM
Susan Faludi is one of the leading lights of feminism.
https://archive.is/gjm5r
Oh. I think Lewis Carroll had some thoughts on that.
I R A Darth Aggie at May 18, 2020 12:34 PM
"Trust us", they said. "We've got this", they said. Uh huh.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-18/over-100-million-in-china-s-northeast-thrown-back-under-lockdown
I R A Darth Aggie at May 18, 2020 1:01 PM
Documentary: "Being Offline is the New Luxury."
It's about 46:30 long.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=2183s&v=WBFoV6jn79c
MIT Professor Sherry Turkle appears early on. Later, there's an Armenian writer who's been called "the new Franz Kafka." In the last third, there's an interview with an Amish seamstress in Indiana, who keeps a very necessary phone outside her house, for her business. Plus the Icelandic politician Birgitta Jónsdóttir. Mark Zuckerberg appears too, but I don't know yet if he gets interviewed.
Lenona at May 18, 2020 1:21 PM
From Fauldi's piece:
...In my online searches, I encountered some feminists who seemed genuinely to subscribe to the phrase. But overwhelmingly, the Twitterati deploying the phrase were conservatives, wielding it as a whip. Why?
Because the right knows what #MeToo activists do well to keep in mind: Peril lies in purity. If the pluralism of the women’s movement can be reduced to rigid boilerplate in the public mind, then the future of #MeToo will have more to lose from a single untruthful woman whom it’s sworn to defend than from boatloads of predatory men...
...This is why “Believe All Women” is not an amplification of “Believe Women,” but its negation. As Mr. Morales Henry at the Schlesinger Library told me, after several days of analyzing the use of the two hashtags, “It looks like #BelieveAllWomen, especially recently, is being used in opposition to #BelieveWomen.” Its use spikes on occasions when allegations are made against a liberal politician — often with companion hashtags decrying a double standard...
____________________________
Btw, this iPad won't let me view the comments - there are only 62 at the moment. If someone would like to post a few, I'd be very grateful.
Lenona at May 18, 2020 1:34 PM
More importantly, from the same piece (plenty of links included):
...Feminism has, indeed, believed many things about “all women.” That all women are deserving of equal treatment under the law, equal pay in the workplace, reproductive health, freedom from domestic violence. And feminists have long held that “all women” should be believed when the “all” refers to all categories of women — i.e., equal regardless of race, religion or economic status. This is what Anita Hill meant when she said in a CNN town hall in 2017, “And until we can believe all women, every woman’s voice has value, none of us really will be seen as equal.” Read her comments in full, and it’s clear she wasn’t giving equal credence to every individual woman, but equal standing to women of “all races, all ages, all sizes, all backgrounds.”
Good luck finding any feminist who thinks we should believe everything all women say — even what they say about sexual assault. History offers ample evidence of the horrors that can ensue when a woman or a man is believed who shouldn’t be: Remember the Scottsboro Boys?
Since at least the late ’90s, gotcha conservativism’s specialty has been condemning feminists for failing to live up to their dogmatist label. First, caricature feminists as a bunch of groupthink totalitarians, then accuse them of hypocrisy every time they are not in lock step. But guess what? Feminism has never, for five minutes, been about lock step. If anything, we tend to be at each other’s throats more often than we’re marching in ranks. And that’s on subjects from comparable worth to women in combat to pornography to #MeToo, where feminists from Margaret Atwood to yours truly have argued for proportion and due process. The broad spectrum of opinion within feminism is one of its strengths, not a frailty. If feminists see distinctions between Anita Hill, Monica Lewinsky, Christine Blasey Ford and Tara Reade, I’d say they’re doing their jobs. That’s not hypocrisy, that’s integrity.
The ultimate hypocrisy would be a women’s movement that rallies behind the banner of reductive hashtags about what every woman thinks. Feminism was birthed out of a desire that women be treated as individuals, not as a cookie-cutter ideal or a faceless stereotype. When I searched databases for women’s actual statements on “believe all women,” what I found were appeals by women not to be defined in universal terms — “I do not believe all women are born with the desire to reproduce” or “I don’t believe all women’s interests are the same” — and outrage at attempts to categorize their sex.
This is why the preferred hashtag of the #MeToo movement is #BelieveWomen. It’s different without the “all.” Believing women is simply the rejoinder to the ancient practice of #DoubtWomen...
(snip)
Lenona at May 18, 2020 1:45 PM
From Bratfree (once again, Yahoo won't let me read the comments):
"Parents willing to risk death for a break from their kids"
cfdavep
May 18, 2020 03:37AM
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/ask-scary-mommy-neighbors-think-054550074.html
"A PNB (parent, not breeder) is being pressured to have playdates start up with her kid involved and she is worried about COVID."
LoveToLurk
May 18, 2020 01:47PM
"There are quite a few butthurt breeders in the comments, insulting this woman.
"This is part of why I don’t want kids - you have to interact with parents breeders. How this woman is governing her own family has no effect on their kids. It’s not about the play date, it’s that they want the validation of her making the same decision as them. It never ends with them."
Lenona at May 18, 2020 1:53 PM
I wonder if #BelieveALLSurvivors is not.
https://mobile.twitter.com/womensmarch/status/1148720493807177728
Sixclaws at May 18, 2020 4:23 PM
Lenona,
On the "... it’s that they want the validation of her making the same decision as them. It never ends with them." I've seen that. But as is obliquely implied in the statement it doesn't matter if they have kids or don't. They are busy bodies. If they never have kids or after their kids have long fled the house they will still be busy bodies. Keeping up with the Jones and whining about the paint job on someone else's house.
As for the willing to risk death to get away from their kids bit, they are at greater risk of death every time they get into a car. Some risks you learn to live with.
Ben at May 18, 2020 6:56 PM
Leave a comment