By now, nobody needs to be reminded of what’s going on. An ongoing campaign of harassment by the men of 4chan, reddit, and other sites has driven two women out of their homes and has targeted dozens more. The unacceptability of this has been…
if you talk to gun enthusiasts for long enough, eventually the subtext becomes clear: they implicitly or explicitly imagine the purpose of the police to be protecting white people from black people, they imagine the purpose of a gun to be “”defense”” against black people. guns are raced as white. gun ownership is for white men and white women. black gunownership is seen as inherently illegitimate, inherently criminal. homeownership is raced as white as well. white people use the political and social capital of homeownership to demand police protection.
just like there’s no contradiction between pro-lifers opposing abortion + supporting the death penalty, because both of those are pro-violence, there is no contradiction between NRA types and Tea Party types opposing gun control + talking about the horror of state tyranny while tactily condoning or openly supporting police crackdowns on black americans.
Notice how the right wing conspiracy theory nuts were relatively quiet during the Bush years, and then suddenly bust out the rhetoric of armed revolution when a black man is elected president. (though these nuts were furiously active back during the Clinton years too)
is the whole 'no perfect mirrors' thing the reason why i look so good in a mirror and then someone takes a photo and I look really not good?
No, that’s because what you look like in a mirror is reversed from what you look like in real life (and in photographs). Unless you’re a supermodel, you’re almost definitely not perfectly symmetrical. You’re used to the way you look, though, so you probably don’t notice your own facial irregularities. When you see your familiar face flipped back-to-front, though, all the irregularities pop out because you’re seeing your face with fresh eyes.
Before you freak out, nobody else notices your facial irregularities, either. They’re also used to the way you look, and their brains have stopped registering those little errors in symmetry. It’s just that, to them, the face that they’re used to is also the face in the photographs. That’s why your friends usually think you look a lot better in pictures than you do, while at the same time lamenting at how awful THEY look (when you think they look fine). It’s not just insecurity at work: you are all, individually, being confronted with an unfamiliar version of yourself.
Regarding the whole feminism debacle, don't you think that a website like Cracked should probably not take sides on issues like this and begin alienating fans?
[Speaking on behalf of myself and not Cracked-at-Large, the policies and shape of which are not under my sole jurisdiction.]
I’m not talking/thinking about every sub-faction of feminism and every misguided protest or action that has resulted from a misinterpretation OF feminism, because feminism is such a huge thing and, as Soren pointed out, not everyone is going to be getting it right, all the time. There will be feminist spin-off groups that don’t quite grasp the message, there will be groups that pervert and distort it for their own agenda, and there will be groups that go overboard and so on, but that is true of literally every movement (civil rights-related, political, religious or otherwise) in the history of time.
I’m by no means an expert, which is why I’m trying to learn, but what I think about when I talk about feminism is what I remember being articulated to me by my sisters-in-law and what I saw/see embodied by my Mom’s example (and my Dad’s, for that matter), and it’s a really simple and clear message to me: Equal political, economic and social rights for men and women. There are smaller and more specific aspects of this broader conversation that are a particular focus of mine (representation in fiction/pop culture, educating people to help make an America where a woman can walk down the street at night feeling exactly as safe as I do, every night of my freaking life [which is to say, very]), but the core remains the same: Equality where it doesn’t currently exist.
So, when you talk about “taking sides,” my knee-jerk response is, uh, what’s your side? I’m not trying to be glib here. I could be wrong but, according to my slow, caveman brain, if my side is equality for men and women then the other side must be inequality, right? And if that’s the case, then, no, I don’t feel any responsibility to give the other side representation in my writing. There’s the potential that in doing so I’ll be alienating readers that either want men to have more rights than women or women to have more rights than men, but that’s a risk I’m absolutely fine with.
So why does Cracked CONSTANTLY push Feminist propaganda so hard? And let's not bullshit ourselves. You do. Just yesterday you published five articles. Two specifically referenced either Feminism or Feminist backed statistics. Conversely whenever you cover anything related to the opposition you not only mislead about their views... you straight up fucking lie about them and people let you get away with it because you're a "humor magazine". So I'm wondering why you propagandize *so hard*. Why?
Because we’re true believers!
Let me take this moment to say how Cracked could have gone another direction 7 or 8 years ago, a more Maximy, Booby Gallery of the Day direction if not for the steadfast resistance of David Wong and Jack O’Brien. I barely acknowledge the side that opposes feminism, but Wong goes out of his way to understand people who are mad at feminists, and he writes about those views with more sensitivity and understanding that I could ever muster.
To sum up: We don’t have an explicit agenda but if one comes across, It’s not one I’m ashamed of.
“In 2009, an exhaustive study published by sociologists at Princeton Uinversity found that when measured on an all-things-being-equal basis, Asian Americans were required to score at least 140 points higher than whites on standardized tests, in order to qualify for admission into top universities.”—Discrimination against the Chinese in America (via miumiumiao)
I’ve been doing some research […] and I’ve found some of the most amazing untranslatable words in the non-American speaking world. Here they are, in no spectacular order.
This is one of the first words I learned about as an untranslatable word. It’s spoken by using an ancient and primitive language from Chile, in Tierra del Fuego. (Tierra del Fuego, by the way, means “Fire, Having Land/Earth/Dirt, Which Land/Earth/Dirt Is Being This Land/Earth/Dirt”.) The word, mamihlapinatapei, is unfortunately untranslatable.
This is a Russian word. It means… uhhh… it’s sort of like… hm. Well it’s a cool meaning, but you have to know Russian to understand it.
The Inuits only have one word for this, and therefore although we can’t know what this word means, we do know that iktsuarpok is neither important nor familiar to the Inuits, otherwise they would have 231 words for it.
This Yiddish word is often used next to schlemiel, both of them meaning something related to each other. The meaning is something close to… uhhhh… dammit this article is hard to write.
No idea. Looks Spanish.
You might recognize this word, but there is no English translation of it. It is similar to a and an but it has a nuanced meaning that those two words just don’t quite capture.
Scots talk funny, don’t they?
Germans use this word. You might notice it has the word panik in it which is close to English panic but those other parts mean some other sorts of things.
In Japanese culture, you have… there are these… ummm… It rhymes with itself. Like that other untranslatable word Oingo Boingo.
This Old English word used to be English when English wasn’t yet old. Once it became old, hwæt became impossible to use.
Not even speakers of Portuguese from Portugal can understand this word. Only speakers of Portuguese from Brazil know what it means.
12. L’appel du vide
There’s no single English word that captures the full meaning of this French phrase. The French have one translation of it that they have shared with us (the call of the void), but they have recently given it another more interesting meaning that they are keeping from us.
This weird German word roughly translates into the English word, schadenfreude.
So it turns out you can be dyslexic in one language but not another, depending on the kind of linguistic processing problem you have. For example, if you have trouble with phonemes, if can be hard to learn alphabetic writing systems like English, but easier to learn logographic writing systems like Chinese. China has dyslexic people obvs, but they seem to have different stuff going on in their brain than English dyslexic people. Huh.
okay so!! NOT EXACTLY. as i understand it anyway but like i’ve been reading about this for like three hours as opposed to years or anything
idk i got carried away and now i’m a pedantic jackass, i’m sorry
Requesting your thoughts on language: In the recent movie "Guardians of the Galaxy," there is a character who's native language is completely literal. I was wondering if it would be possible for a language like that to develop naturally or if it would have to be the result of a concerted effort by a society to make their language unambiguous and literal. Thoughts?
But these are aliens, so this question is impossible to answer.
There are languages like that on Earth already! Lojban is an attempt to build an unambiguous language, or at least, a language built on predicate logic. Since metaphors in language are ambiguous (It is the east, and Juliet is the sun? Wait, how precisely IS Juliet the sun? Is she a mass of incandescent gas?), you’d expect you could use a language like Lojban to speak unambiguously, especially if you avoided all metaphors.
(CLARIFICATION: Lojban is syntactically unambiguous (ie: word order), not semantically unambiguous (ie: word meaning). I’m proposing you use a syntactically-unambiguous language as semantically unambiguously as possible to approximate unambiguous communication. )
One reason metaphors creep in everywhere is that they’re so insanely useful. If I say someone is trash, you instantly know what I think about them. One word, but it carries with it everything I (or rather, you) think about garbage! Metaphors are too useful not to gonna creep into whatever language you build, because one day someone is gonna look at someone else and say “this awful person reminds me of garbage in all but the literal ways, and I’d like to express that in an evocative and efficient way.”
AN ASIDE: it sucks that this character in Guardians who says everything literally calls another character a whore. It’s a stupid line that doesn’t even make sense for the character, because everything he says is literal and she has not been having sex for money.