Friday Ephemera
Micro-actuators of note. (h/t, Damian) // Maslow 2.0 // The cunning stunts of Buster Keaton. // Attention, barren women. Prepare to be overjoyed. // Yes, it’s big and pink. What are you going to do about it? // Sketching perspective with the help of elastic. // The trees of Slope Point, New Zealand. // Arrange your succulents pleasingly. // Why voices squeak during puberty. // How to look punk, 1977. // A brief geographical history of the Roman Empire. // 80s knitwear of note. Avert your eyes. // No, like this. // “Notice that wall.”// Coral, accelerated. // Hummingbird courtship. // Aerodynamic cycling. // Things old people do. // Somewhat imperfect designs. // Drops of water. // The perils of self-service checkouts. // And finally, forgetfully, it’s a good job his wife has skillz.
They tried to remove it using a fork handle and barbecue prongs but all efforts failed.
Given that she was unaware of the whereabouts of the mislaid item until she inadvertently activated it by touching her stomach, would it be ungallant of me to speculate that its removal was perhaps rather more difficult than its introduction had been?
They tried to remove it using a fork handle and barbecue prongs but all efforts failed.
I suppose a couple of cups of coffee, a fry-up and a few hours wait was out of the question.
Jeff Wood: Sorry, I can’t visualize the henchlesbians having any particular political bent, at least not in their official capacities. The tapes I’ve managed to get, poor audio quality aside, contain only various assertions of complete and utter loyalty to Our Gracious Host. There was really too much interfering noise from the hottub bubblers to hear much else.
(And there’s no chance of obtaining better – the equipment all vanished, the only hint being a Chinese Fortune left in my in-box the next day: “Man who say It Cannot Be Done should not interfere with Man Doing It” Make of that what you will.)
Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer led illegal purge of male employees, lawsuit charges
Up through about a year ago I worked at a company which claimed great bewilderment that an entire class of extremely competent staff—male and female—were openly running for the doors, as well as getting fired.
The alleged management stating the bewilderment equally practiced the same form of harassment of the competent and capable, and also openly practiced promotion of the incompetent and politically connected.
In response to NUS president Malia Bouattia, mentioned here recently, this, by Courtney Hamilton, is worth a squint:
As I’m sure I’ve said many times, modern leftism is corrosive to stoicism, to self-possession, and ultimately, to success.
Before becoming overtly racialised, this approach to education was couched in terms of ‘relevance’: essentially, the idea was that those new to, or unprepared for, or estranged from, education should not be confronted with anything unfamiliar to them. This is antithetical to the very idea of education, which should provide the learner with a window onto the world, rather than a mirror in which to preen.
I am reminded of Diane Ravitch’s The Language Police about textbooks being bowdlerized or censored in order to ensure that students only study ‘relevant’ and inoffensive materials. One example that sticks in my mind was Hemingway’s The Old Man and the Sea, deemed unsuitable as students living inland would struggle with the concept of a large body of water (the words ‘old’ and ‘man’ are obviously deeply problematic too).
Huh. It turns out that the modern art that we love so well was mostly funded and promoted by the CIA. They thought they could use it as a weapon in the culture wars.
You see, on the other side of the planet, the Russian style of choice was Socialist Realism, which depicted accurate, politically-tinted scenes of home life, productive countrysides, and such. It’s beautiful school in its own right—but a pretty enormous distance from the uncaged, violently individualistic monster of American modern art at the time.
No wonder it took 70 years to get rid of the Soviet Union…..
via Gizmodo
Socialist Realism is no more beautiful than its Nazi equivalent.
Socialist Realism
Two words that don’t generally belong together.
People often look puzzled when I tell them I want to go live in a cabin on a mountain top, surrounded by triple strand concertina 300 yards out, and a moat beyond that. One reason. Another.
One reason.
Don’t forget the University of Michigan’s $13,000 vibrating nap machine.
Wonders of wonders, a programme on Radio 4 pointing out that it is often a really good idea for Governments to so nothing, pointing out examples, reasons why it would be a Good Thing and reasons why it never bloody happens:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07x20bz
…$13,000 vibrating nap machine…
Thank goodness we have risen from the savagery where one had to take an elevator, or worse, stairs, to one’s own bed to nap.
Trevor: In the US, at least, there was a prior to “relevance” which was “accessibility”. You note that in your remark about teaching Old Man and the Sea. One saw this also in discussions of the validity of e.g. IQ test questions like “Which of these 4 animals are pets?” presented to a child from a culture with a very non-western view of “pet”.
The basic problem I see is not in the specifics, but in the truth of Moore’s Laws of Bureaucracies, in particular “Bureaucracies are Immortal” and “Bureaucracies grow without bound.”
My favorite example is the US concept of “Affirmative Action” in higher education. A review of the congressional arguments about the proposals from the 60s is eye-opening. Fundamentally it was sold to the public as little more than funding for “outreach” programs, where Unis would extend their marketing and recruiting efforts into underrepresented communities, e.g. inner cities. We can all see what happened to those good intentions.
My point is that the tendency of reasonable folk to agree to try these harmless-sounding ideas historically results in the endless extension of tasks and powers for the various groups actually employed (i.e. paid) to do them. The pernicious effect on the philosophy surrounding the original concepts, and on the associated people, both directly (employees) and indirectly (e.g. uni students), of this tendency has certainly provided Our Gracious Host and His Minions with plenty of fodder.
This is antithetical to the very idea of education, which should provide the learner with a window onto the world, rather than a mirror in which to preen.
Ethnic and Gender Studies, aka Angry Studies = The Preening Mirror.
Two words that don’t generally belong together.
I think that fits the adage that attaching “social” to a word inverts its meaning.
This is antithetical to the very idea of education, which should provide the learner with a window onto the world, rather than a mirror in which to preen.
“Yes, the world and everything in it, and all that has ever been in it, is all about you, and how beautiful and noble you are, and how you’re so unfairly put-upon by all those terrible people who aren’t you and who don’t even look like you.”
A few years of that, reinforced all but daily, and pretty soon you’ll get things like this.
I think that fits the adage that attaching “social” to a word inverts its meaning.
To take the obvious one, the term “social justice” is generally used by the kind of people who want the rest of us to believe that they’re much more virtuous than they actually are. Which, terribly cynic that I am, strikes me as a somewhat suspicious ambition. Despite the frequency with which the term “social justice” is deployed, it remains a conveniently woolly buzzword, little more than a way to signal in-group piety among scoundrels and idiots. It sounds unassailably benign, but it’s often deployed so as to obscure some other, less edifying intent.
One of the things it seems to entail in practice is treating people not as individuals but as categories. And then judging a person and their actions based primarily on which Designated Victim Group they supposedly belong to and assigning various exemptions and indulgences according to that notional group identity and whatever baggage can be attached to it. And conversely, assigning imaginary sins and “privilege” to someone else based on whatever Designated Oppressor Group they can be said to belong to, however fatuously and regardless of the particulars of the actual person and their actions.
Which is to say, “social justice” is largely about judging people not as individuals but tribally, cartoonishly, by different and contradictory standards, based on some supposed group identity – their melanin levels or genitals or whatever. It’s glib, usually question-begging, and quickly becomes pernicious. It’s a parody of morality for the vain and mediocre.
“Which is to say, “social justice” is largely about judging people not as individuals but tribally, cartoonishly, by different and contradictory standards, based on some supposed group identity – their melanin levels or genitals or whatever. It’s glib, usually question-begging, and quickly becomes pernicious. It’s a parody of morality for the vain and mediocre.”
Brilliant comment, David. Now will someone please hit the media with a clue bat?
Oh, wait – they’re not what they pretend to be (and expect us to believe), either.