But Osiris resurrects. As the matter of fact, annually. Osiris' wife, Isis, searches for Osiris' remains until she finally finds them on the Phoenician coast. She manages to take out the coffin and open it, and with the help of a spell she returns her husband to life in order to get pregnant from him. Then Osiris dies again, and Isis hides his body in a desert.
But Seth finds the body of Osiris, breaks it into pieces and scatters them onto ground. In the Greek version, Osiris is described as an ancient king who taught Egyptians the arts and the agriculture. Osiris travelled around the world with his sister Isis, satyrs and nine muses, until he finally returned to Egypt, where his evil brother Typhon killed him, chopping the body into pieces.
Yet, each of them resurrected. Effectively, annually. One also has to remember that the Egyptian pharaos were blond-haired and blued-eyed, and obviously came from the North, and brought their culture and myths to the south, some 5, years ago. One may also recall Apollo who fought the dragon serpent called Python. During the celebration of Yule, the holiday of the winter solstice, the Joulupukki Yule Goat , was visiting homes and checking whether everything was ready for the celebration: was the house clean, were the necessary meals prepared, did the owners of the house have new clothes.
Joulupukki was also used to frighten children. In Zoroastrian tradition the longest and darkest night of the year is a particularly inauspicious day, and Shab-e Yalda is intended to protect people from evil during that long night, at which time the evil forces of Ahriman are imagined to be at their peak. People are advised to stay awake most of the night, in the safety of groups of friends and relatives, share the last remaining fruits from the summer, lest misfortune should befall them.
The next day i. Any possible contamination to the Eng. Yule is not even considered. Yet, it is naive to associate the etymology with mere 'shouting' at festivities, or with a public 'announcement' of the beginning of a new month year. Olanda, Rus. And one may actually observe the contamination of the concepts of the UnderWorld, the Death, the Evil , on the one hand, and the Life, the Revival, the Resurrection , on the other - in the name of this holiday, simultaneously. As already mentioned, in the Zoroastrian Persian, Iranian traditions the longest and darkest night of the year, the Shab-e Yalda , word Yalda is associated with the meaning of "birth".
It is also noteworthy how close are the Turkic and Scandinavian constructions, e. House of Secrets Ilse Decameron, a vampire of Clan Tremere, is on a mission to procure a mortal mage. On her trail is Kurt Westphal, a member of the rival Ventrue clan who is seeking to uncover the Tremere's newest threat.
He and Ilse uncover a web of betrayal, demonic pacts and a scheme which, if it succeeds, will spell the end of the vampire clans and forever change the face of the World of Darkness. Mage The Ascension Tarot A Player aid for Mage: The Ascension, this card Tarot deck is suitable for stand-alone use or in conjunction with chronicles and contains lavish, full-color art commissioned specifically for this deck.
Includes instructions on standard Tarot readings as well as using the cards as a Storytelling tool for chronicles. Note, this is a recreation of the original deck using the print on demand options Mage The Awakening Tarot A Player aid for Mage: The Awakening, this card Tarot deck is suitable for stand-alone use or in conjunction with chronicles and contains lavish, full-color art commissioned specifically for this deck. Note: Originally released in for Mage: the Awakening 1st There are no tables or dice involved in Mind's Eye Theatre games. Instead, you become a part of the story. You assume the role of your character as soon as you step through the door, enacting every action, movement and gesture.
For the purposes of the game, you are your character. This is a deck of On A Darkling Plain Grief-stricken over the mysterious death of his beloved wife, the vampire known as Elliott Sinclair is sinking into lethargy and despair. When a mysterious enemy assails his people, he rouses himself to command the defense, only to discover that he and his clan are merely pawns in a deadly game between two ancient undead. It is a duel that has raged since the dawn of civilization.
And the unseen In pain, she cries out to her strongest children. With a howl, they answer her. From the white-hot crucibles of battle they arise, joining into packs to tear through all who would threaten their world. But the Wyrm, too, has its dark heroes, and they are willing to do anything Werewolves from all corners of the Earth leave their hidden glens to join the combat.
Shop with confidence
They struggle for supremacy against the hordes of the devouring Wyrm, weird creatures from the Umbra and their own kind. With Spirits their allies and claws their weapons, only one pack will win. One pack to lead the Garou in the final war of the Apocalypse The tribe is torn by inner strife as two werewolves battle for ascension to the throne. Lord Albrecht has long been exiled from the court of his tribe, but he must return to claim the throne, lest his corrupt cousin gain the leadership of the Fangs—and deliver the tribe into the hands of the Wyrm. But ignoring the issue of which side is more correct, it seems to me like Breitbart has a stronger and more overt conservative slant than CNN does a liberal slant, or at least that it makes much less of a claim to be a neutral gatekeeper.
Would you disagree? I was actually surprised by the parenthetical. I would take this to suggest that maybe libertarianism is correct. Leftism is obviously wrong — Scott however finds the actual right wing so alien and repulsive for emotional reasons that he can only express the wrongness of mainstream leftism through the prism of older leftism libertarianism. Imagine a hypothetical hard-line libertarian not-a-state, with an alternate-universe version of Scott who broadly agrees with libertarian principles but is concerned about, say, collective action problems.
Oh, get off the hobby horse, reasoned argumentation. Anyway, as a conservative, I am not worried about the current situation. Conservatism gave way to increasing liberalism which tends to go the way of liberalisation and then libertinism and then decadence and then crash, whump, reaction to conservatism once again, and we all take another spin on the merry-go-round:.
Trying to psychoanalyze the emotional machinations of why someone as bright as Scott has the opinions he does is not only rude, but also unlikely to actually be correct. Scott does tend towards libertarianism in that he tends to bewail the absence of a solution to problems that have an obvious just-make-them-do-the-right-thing solution. This is basically my impression. But I live in America, where all the medicine costs 4x what it should and and college costs 10x what it should and the police drive tanks and you need a degree to braid hair.
I feel like people are trying to fix a sinking ship by poking more holes in it. He is every conservatives favorite progressive. He wants them to be better, we want them to be criticized. It works out. He has gone out of the way to say he is liberal — is that not enough [to make him progressive]? Not enough. Progressives are noticeably more expressive about how they think their ideas will improve society.
The problem is that no one believes them, or thinks they believe it themselves. CNN might miss the mark alarmingly often, but at least they agree that the target exists and that hitting it is good. Let me see if I understand your argument. Well, I often see GetReligion a site about journalism and coverage of religion lamenting that the American media seems to be moving to European-style advocacy journalism where every paper has a particular political viewpoint and you know which is on the right, far-right, centre, left, far-left, etc from good old-fashioned American-style impartial and fair reporting.
As King Lear says,. A man may see how this world goes with no eyes. Look with thine ears. See how yon justice rails upon yon simple thief. Hark in thine ear: change places and, handy-dandy, which is the justice, which is the thief? Too often we label whole groups from a perspective that uncritically accepts a stereotype or unfairly marginalizes them. We particularly slip into these traps in feature stories when reporters and editors think they are merely presenting an interesting slice of life, with little awareness of the power of labels. We need to be more vigilant about the choice of language not only in the text but also in headlines, captions and display type.
Even though I despised Clinton, in early I thought that Trump was the most dangerous of the presidential candidates. But the blatant bias of the media especially CNN in favor of Clinton and against Trump pissed me off so much that I ended up hoping Trump would win just to stick it to the smarmy, condescending bastards. Having successfully purged itself of wrong-think, Slate became utterly unreadable after many years of decent moderate-leftie journalism.
Trump was so anti-press that dozens of newspapers that had endorsed every Republican since, say, Taft flipped to Hillary or refused to endorse anyone. I also like editorials and commentary and blogs written by people with an opinion. I just think that when you mix the two and blur the lines between news and editorial opinion the result is ugly. Someone decides in some way who gets what treatment, and that means deciding that some people will die who could have lived at least a little longer. Death panel. My main source of right-wing news is National Review, and they dismissed it as obvious nonsense before was even out.
Was taken seriously by exactly nobody on the right but Trump. Instead of thinking who is more biased overall, I like the idea of ranking by irrationality on issues. Liberals and race would be my number 1, followed closely by liberals and gender at 2. It was a questionable, but believable proposition to start with, which a biased media pushed pretty heavily during the brief period before it had been definitively disproven, but which a large group of low-information supporters latched onto and refused to let go of, perhaps bolstered by the media in question mostly just ignoring that aspect of the issue once it was disproven, rather than going out of their way to point out how wrong they were.
Most of the other examples people have brought up in this thread are questionable, at best, i. I mean people with influence, not polls of what people believe. A lot less brief — it was before the certified copy of the Certificate of Live Birth was released. It may not be explicitly about rationing, but the effect is the same. End of life counseling is going to include Hospice and subjects like quality of life under chemo and so forth.
It will and should address wasting medical resources on hopeless cases. That third round of expensive hard core chemo for your stage 4 cancer that has metastasized everywhere when you can barely walk is not a good move according to reasonable counseling. You start hospice, you stop diagnostic treatments. Home hospice is cheap as dirt relatively. Disclosure: My mom was a hospice nurse for 20 years and died from breast cancer. The birth notices in Hawaiian newspapers should have been enough for anyone.
They came out as soon as the story surfaced in Surely conservatives on God is number one? Agree conservative faith in religions must be the top in irrationality. But how irrational about God are they during an argument? A cheap slogan that triggers emergency self-defense mode in the audience, and diminishes reasoning and understanding and finding preventions capacity.
The framing is pretty infantile, and ends up being misleading. If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. Bravo wysinwygymmv, bravo. This exact quote came to mind while reading this. Most people fall into the trap of believing themselves to be the righteous ones God is on our side, etc.. This is so often an impediment to rational thinking.
Another way of putting it as stated by Peterson. You have plenty of examples to choose from. You can; you just need a societal consensus that guns are bad and a ban on guns. I think you are being uncharitable, Vorkon. Vorkon appeared to be talking only about the factual question, the one on which the OP was ridiculing the right-wing position.
We as a society agreed that alcohol was bad and banned it. How did that work out? We as a society have agreed that drugs are bad and banned. How is that working out? Please consider the evidence, both historic and current, before assuming a US gun ban will work out the way it did for the UK and Australia. And the story of those countries too are not as clear cut as you might think  , .
It may be the the case that if everyone was forced or heavily socially pressured to own and carry a gun, society would be safer. Also, a distinction really needs to be made between handguns and long guns with the possible exception of break action shotguns that can be sawn off. The latter are disproportionately used for shooting things that are not people and are bad weapons for criminals. New Zealand barely regulates long guns at all, and they are pretty similar to Australia in terms of crime rate, gun violence etc.
I see a country that has seen violent crime steadily mount while its restriction on guns piled up. No one does pure good or pure bad. Therefore, no one is better than anyone else. You see what? Furthermore, I have no idea how you would propose a causal link between firearms in the UK, which have been heavily restricted since , and violent crime rates today. Indeed i doubt there has been a period of modern British history in which firearm ownership was widespread. My impression, again from literature not statistics, is that shotgun ownership was common, at least among land owners, not for protection but for sport.
At the beginning of WWII, I believe there was extensive activity with private weapons being turned in to the government for military use—somewhere there should be figures on the numbers. In most of the cases where a mass shooter was stopped by a civilian or civilians, the people who stopped him were unarmed. I believe the standard objection to that statistic is not that it is false, but that it is the result of survivorship bias: First, mass shooters are presumably unlikely to seek victims where they know there will be armed opposition, and have their choice of venues.
Ok, Skivverus, that may be a fair criticism. Gary Kleck would like to have a word with you, or maybe a 2. In a nation where about a quarter of the population owns handguns and about one in thirty regularly carries, approximately every single mass shooting incident has occurred in a legally designated gun-free zone where only the police are allowed to carry guns. Yes, there are places in the United States where only the police are allowed to carry guns, or nearly so. Why do you imagine it is that would-be mass murderers only ever manage to rack up newsworthy death tolls in these places?
CPR has never ever ever saved a drowning victim. That is not a correct recounting of events. The shooting was seen by about a dozen people, and while there were some minor inconsistencies in the accounts, Dorian Johnson was clearly lying. Speaking as an attorney, eye-witness statements taken by the party which they favor and not subjected to cross are worth very, very little; least of all in a controversial and well-publicized case like that.
This is a common occurrence. Inside view: Roughly a dozen witnesses gave accounts that vary only slightly on what happened. Witness 14 gave the longest and most detailed report; even though he? Global warming being a hoax? Mass rape waves in Europe? Spirit cooking? Abstinence-only sex ed? Satanic child abuse rings? An aside on Fox News. But over time I decided it was just a bullshit slogan. Trump I think is different. When he was campaigning he said words to communicate with voters, but what he was communicating was pretty detached from his syntax.
He knew the girl was 15, he knew the girl was in high school. That was just the cherry on top, so to speak. That was before Clinton appointed her as Attorney General.
The Diamond Warrior Saga
The McMartin case in L. Coakley was Massachusetts Attorney General and unsuccessful Democratic candidate for the senate to replace Ted Kennedy. Did any Republican president appoint a Republican prosecutor involved in one of the cases Attorney General? Did any of them get a Republican nomination for the Senate? That every report you hear about about Muslims engaging in mass rape is a hoax?
Near as I can tell the only argument against it was the low prior. This is a common assertion. Have you looked at the emails in question? Whether it refers to pedophilia or something else, I have no idea. Take this for data, I guess. I attempted to elaborate but my comment appears to have been deleted by moderation, which I must say is not exactly doing wonders for my impression of the way the topic is treated.
You probably tripped over a banned word. A partial list is on the comments page in the header. Suggest using Harry Potter references and opaque injokes like the rest of us. Oh, indeed I did. I feel kind of silly now, because the banned word I tripped over appears to have been banned with good intentions. The symbols are deliberately designed so they could be coincidentally recreated by chance, but the sheer concentration of them in one place is the strongest evidence for PizzaGate, IMO.
The Podestas are well-known among their friends and acquaintances as art collectors, and a lot of the art that they display in their house share themes of sexual violence, particularly towards children. As an opponent of thoughtcrime-based rhetoric, for example towards fanfiction on Tumblr, it would be wildly hypocritical for me to call this evil in itself; I would call it Bayesian evidence though. The timeline matches up perfectly for this meme to have been the outcome of elites panicking and scrambling to bury PizzaGate.
I need more on this please. Also, any reason to think johnvertblog had anything to do with that guy who went to check things out? I also like snarky sense of humor and I believe this comment section would be dull without it. If I get comments like yours above, it will do nothing to convince me my pet conspiracy theory is wrong.
Quite possibly it will have the opposite effect. They are all incredibly stupid. You also assert that Johnvert bears no responsibility for a guy who, taking the theories he is peddling here seriously, went and shot up the place. The bailey is that the whole thing is bullshit intended to destroy capitalism. The motte is Campaign Zero and the things Conor Friedersdorf writes about. He toned it down quite a bit for the Times. The defensible version is that people on the left are willing to believe and propagate an exaggerated version of the problem because it provides arguments for policies they would be in favor of anyway.
There is a popular cartoon which makes that point pretty clearly without, presumably, the author realizing the implications. Or something. Wait, why is it ironic? DavidFriedman : The defensible version is that people on the left are willing to believe and propagate an exaggerated version of the problem because it provides arguments for policies they would be in favor of anyway.
Those are real beliefs, really held by some people on the right. This is humorous to me because of his long involvement with SCA. The paper is defining bias by reference to Congress. A completely unbiased news source would use the same distribution of think tanks as the median member of congress. They explicitly are not defining it by reference to truth. That only works if the median member of congress is in the middle. However, congress is currently Republican controlled so you would expect the median member of congress to have a right-wing bias.
As others have noted, the report is a bit outdated. Just enough to be a majority but I doubt enough to skew the median substantially. Actually, that is just enough to skew the median substantially. In my opinion, the New York Times is clearly the highest quality news organization in the country. The research would give that one to The Economist, by measure of overall trust in its reporting. And if you want data backing up the claim that mainstream media leans liberal, look no further than the number of reds in the left column versus the number of yellows in the right.
Advertiser-funded news only gets money if people click, and nothing makes people click like partisan outrage in the headline. This connection suggests that a good media-improving campaign would be to refuse to read anything on the internet funded by pay-per-click, i. I mean, come on. They published on September 10th. The next day, of course, Hillary collapsed in public, due to an undisclosed medical condition. Another part, I would link to your own comments about how man is a rational animal, and so dismissing their rational thoughts with contempt, is a form of dehumanization.
For grins, I just clicked over to CNN. Come on.
Dukhai () - Plot Summary - IMDb
Janet, I mostly agree. These videos did not show Hillary Clinton suffering seizures, and no subsequent evidence supported this claim. The bill does cut protections for the sick in order to liberate funds for a future tax cut targeting high income earners. Personally, I think the more conceptual categories the better.
If you accept my premise, then this makes Breitbart more sophisticated conceptually than the NYT on this one topic.
- The League: The True Story of Average Americans on the Hunt for WWI Spies.
- Neutral vs. Conservative: The Eternal Struggle;
- Sexy Model Photography: Hot Redheads, Photos & Pictures of Redhead Babes, Women, Girls & Chicks, Vol. 11!
- Royal Defense Saga | App Price Drops.
- Neutral vs. Conservative: The Eternal Struggle | Slate Star Codex.
- The Eternal Arena Tavern :: The Banner Saga 3 General Discussions.
- 5x Elder Impersonation - Vampire Eternal Struggle VTES Jyhad | eBay.
So, does your point boil down to right-wing media being honest about its leaning while the left-wing media being dishonest about it? Fox News is a Rupert Murdoch operation. Rupert Murdoch has one guiding principle: making money. His marriage to Wendi Deng was seen by some as being as much or mainly about getting a toe-hold in the Chinese market as True Love.
Rupert Murdoch is a capitalist. He has no other conservative values than that. Sulzberger Jr. The Times has chosen to be an unashamed product of the city whose name it bears, a condition magnified by the been-there-done-that irony afflicting too many journalists. Our wedding page includes — and did even before New York had a gay marriage law — included gay unions. Socially liberal. Being right is necessary but not sufficient. We also strive to be impartial.
We are agnostic as to where a story may lead; we do not go into a story with a preconceived notion. We do not manipulate or hide facts to advance an agenda. We strive to preserve our independence from political and economic interests, including our own advertisers and including our own government. NPR, whose news coverage I admire, must surely be wondering whether a federal subsidy is worth its vulnerability to the riptides of Congressional politics.
My little realm, the newsroom, consists of about 1, people. Every one of them has opinions about a lot of things. But just as doctors and lawyers, teachers and military officers, judges and the police are expected to set aside their own politics in the performance of their duties, so are our employees.
Sorry, birthers, but President Obama is an American citizen. Impartiality is, for us, not just a matter of pretending to be neutral; it is a healthful, intellectual discipline. Once you proclaim an opinion, you may feel an urge to defend it, and that creates a temptation to overlook inconvenient facts when you should be searching them out. In short, our mission is not to tell you what we think or what you are supposed to think, and it is certainly not to pander to your prejudices. It is to supply to you, as best we can, the basis to make up your own minds.
The Ochs-Sulzberger family has owned the Times since the late 19th Century and has done well by it. But that has largely been forgotten as intra-Jewish discrimination has been retconned into anti-Semitism in the interest of Jewish communal amity. There are two very important sleights of hand being played here.
Social science is equally bad. Much of American social science is dedicated to producing findings in favor of progressive racial narratives. A critical reading of the literature reveals that the evidence for each of these propositions is essentially nil. I must have missed the boat on the stereotype threat being a false finding thing — can someone point me to relevant paper s?
Inasmuch as you trust Wikipedia , it has links to the appropriate papers. No problem with paywalls I work at a university , but I am apparently way too lazy to Google for 30 seconds. Annihilated would be strong, I think. A healthy injection of doubt due to the possibility of publication bias and weak stats, perhaps?
I have much sympathy for my colleagues working in human sciences. Ever since the federally funded Coleman Report of , mainstream social sciences have been full of hatestats. And yet somehow the conventional wisdom remains, well, the conventional wisdom. What happened to Larry Summers when he let slip some hatefacts? What happened to James D. People are generally not going to pay much attention to facts that get even incredibly famous and powerful individuals shown the door. In , there was a survey of academics attending a conference on intelligence. According to the expert respondents, the most reliable source of journalism on IQ matters in English turned out to be … me.
If it is either the radical students or the radical professors, are they a minority, and if so, how did they acquire this power? Uh-oh …. If you want your pup to grow up to be cringing and dependent upon you, use intermittent reinforcement: beat him randomly rather than consistently. Thus the inconsistency of the beatings for violations of political correctness has a bigger impact than if there were carefully worked out bright lines that everybody could understand and follow.
One of the things that randomness does is it encourages people to believe that those who got punished must have had it coming. That part, too, is fairly clear to me. In the case of universities canceling speakers, it seems fairly clear to me that the problem is a loud, violent, radical minority of students.
For the James Watson case it is less clear to me. The lab he resigned from was a private lab — no radical students to cause trouble, etc. So what happened? Does Cold Spring Harbor Lab maintain close relationships with universities it fears offending and the universities are then basically held hostage by loud violent radical etc. Was it pure media pressure — perhaps making the lab fear for its funding? Or they were afraid of offending some researchers? Or maybe the culture of self-policing is just so pervasive that Watson was forced to resign without any concrete threat?
Or some combination of all of these? Finally, to get back to my original question: Who, specifically, is preventing the conventional wisdom in social science from changing? And whose job is it to turn research into the conventional wisdom? And, again, most importantly: do you think there is any way to change this? If we managed to reduce the power of organized loud violent etc.
It was the obvious misreading of the first graph here. I guess this is what happens when you let your guard down. I think one very important distinction between Breitbart et al and the mainstream left-leaning news is that the mainstream news does not commit outright fraud. There is no equivalent of this on the left-leaning mainstream side. There is an abandonment of the notion that one should stand on a bedrock of truth on the Breitbart side of things, indeed it was precisely by abandoning this that they became a force to be reckoned with.
Trust me, I know plenty of the left wing equivalents of the worst right wing scumbags. But the point is that there are numerous large and powerful institutions, among which the entire mainstream media belongs, where these attitudes are kept in check through formal processes, explicit ideological commitments, and probably most important of all implicitly-learned habits. The same is not true of Breitbart and similar places. I think, as Scott says, that this is an appalling and dangerous state for the Western world to be in, but here we are.
I also agree that there are many ways in which the left holds responsibility for this state, and this post points to some of them. Anyway, there has been plenty of fraud in mainstream news lately and much of it has been insultingly obvious. The NYT controls carefully what concepts are considered mainstream. Although it is definitely true that they are insufficiently skeptical of dramatic, media-friendly hate crimes. O the fuckers.
Not just a convincing case that prominent hate crimes are likely to be false, but also a convincing explanation about why they are likely to be false. Dunn trashed her car and then blamed it on her conservative white male students. I believe that is consistent with my earlier point about the optics euphonics?
I blame liberal bias! Dan Rather engaged in outright fraud. The only thing that is really right wing in the WSJ is the editorial page. Fox was created because there were 6 news sites that were essentially a 4 on a scale of with 10 being the most conservative. MSNBC was a response to create a liberal Fox, but since the main stream was already a 4 they had to go even further to differentiate. That is my assessment as well. To this day he and Mapes insist they were legit.
The NYT has printed a lot of wholly fraudulent stories about gang rape at UVA and Duke because they want to believe that evil cishet white male Haven Monahans are out raping away. I think Enkidum is trying to draw a distinction in that some Conservative stories were actively fabricated, whereas the Rolling Stone rape story and others were just a matter of suppressing their skepticism of something that was given to them.
One of the things which came out at the defamation trial is that the Rolling Stone author basically started out with the premise of the story: college campus frat culture rape, administration silences victim, and then shopped around for someone to say that happened to them. Ironically, but predictably, her hate hoax led to an actual Night of Broken Glass on campus as liberal students smashed the windows of the fraternity libeled in her article.
Interestingly, at the U. I know what it means. Jewishness is just a non-issue in most contexts, with the arguable exception of Israel, but even that seems to be cast more as a West-vs-Arab-world thing than a Jewish-vs-Muslim thing. She finds the blond gentiles at UVA, with their admiration for Thomas Jefferson, disturbing and dangerous. She is immediately tackled by one of the eight men waiting in the pitch darkness. Their toppling bodies crash through a glass table unaccountably left out in the middle of the rape room.
Amidst the shattered glass, the young men beat her and hold her down on the floor. The shards grind into her bleeding back as she is methodically raped in the dark for three hours by seven young men, while her upperclassman date and another man coach them.
In other words, this is supposed to be some sort of fraternity initiation rite. The last lad, whom Jackie somehow recognizes in the dark as a boy in her anthropology class, rapes her with a glass bottle. As a creative work of art, however, drawing consciously or unconsciously upon multiple influences such as the blockbuster Girl with the Dragon Tattoo hate porn franchise and the Shattered Glass biopic of magazine article fabricator Stephen Glass, it is more impressive.
Glass represents not the calm transparency of a window pane, but the occluded viciousness of the white conservative Southern male power structure.
Behind her, one of her dozen or so friends stumbles into the street, sending a beer bottle shattering. During her sophomore year, Jackie became prominent in the struggle on campus against rape culture.
But the patriarchy struck back brutally last spring, using its favorite tool of violence, the glass bottle. Outside a bar at the Corner:. Or are we deep into Gone Girl territory now? Erdely continues:. A metaphor — and a versatile one, as you say — is a bit of a thin reed to hang race hatred on. I could probably come up with a dozen symbolic uses of broken glass without trying hard; Watchmen and Apocalypse Now are only the first two that come to mind. Student activist who led vandalism attack on Phi Kappa Psi fraternity house says he has no regrets.
Bottles and bricks were tossed through nearly every first-floor window, sending shards of glass and crashing sounds into the house around a. Scott Aaronson has found himself the target of feminist ire. Our own host has noted fear of physical and repuational attacks on him. So I think Sailer is off-base here. Let me point out that the other Washington newspaper reporter who did good work revealing just how absurd the Rolling Stone UVA hate hoax was was also named Shapiro: T. Rees Shapiro of the Washington Post. If it were respectable to point out examples of anti-gentilism in mainstream media, there would be less of it.
Because criticism is good for human beings. Having it pointed out when we succumb to common failings such as anti-gentilic bigotry, we would be on guard to be guilty of it less often. My personal opinion is that American Jews have largely earned their wealth and influence through their intelligence and hard work. On the other hand, what seems to be unfortunately underdeveloped among Jews relative to the old WASP elites they have largely displaced is a sense of noblesse oblige toward their fellow Americans. But almost nobody dares notice how Jewish ethno-schmaltz and anti-WASP hostility is allowed to control what Americans are allowed to say.
We would be better off if we were as free to laugh at Jewish ideological predilections as we are free to laugh at white people. Sure, American Jews might be a little more willing than Anglos to buy into that narrative. Jews are less the target audience than the suppliers of this worldview that sacralizes immigration. Of course Sabrina Rubin Erdely knows of a key event in the trend toward the Holocaust. She was an Ivy League grad who makes 6 figures per year as a professional writer. She sends her two kids to a Jewish summer camp:.
There recently was an essay in my weekend newspaper by a Jewish person who was upset at being lumped in with gentiles by anti-racists. So I can see how a relatively high percentage of Jews may have completely broken BS detectors when it comes to hoaxes like these.
However, you ascribe a level of intentional malice to Erderly for which there is just no evidence. The narrative that women are an oppressed group who are kept down with sexual violence is a fairly common SJ narrative. As such, it is not surprising that Erderly would link the oppression of Jews with her claim of oppression of women, by invoking the image of the Kristallnacht; just like a black feminist could liken it to slavery.
It is a logical consequence of a world view that divides the world in oppressors and the oppressed, where all claims of oppression are hyped so minor upsetting experiences are treated as being extremely destructive.
This outrage inflation then pushes mass rape into Holocaust territory, as it would otherwise be trivialized by getting the same level of outrage as being asked an upsetting question.