Since Sarsour counts as stupid most of the time, I’m putting this here.
Speaking of Sarsour, she’s soliciting for a political PAC under guise of it being a Hurricane Harvey Relief Fund.
Lovely take from Hebdo on the floods, but you can rest assured that no one will be killed over it.
“All the news that’s fit to print”
The one other thing I remember as a History Major is that many of the eventual Confederate Generals served alongside the eventual Union Generals with distinction in the Mexican-American War ~ 10-15 years before the Civil War.
Vanessa Friedman, “On the Runway” under the Fashion & Style banner.
Plus, did you read it? It’s about the social media furor over the shoes and the deeper meaning behind the fashion message of shoes.
But to dismiss all this as merely much ado about heels, or an example of the pettiness of our divided electorate, is to ignore the reality of the current conversation around the president — to pretend not to notice how sensitized everyone has become to his unpredictable reactions to major events, and to deny the power of the telling detail to invite applause, condemnation or misinterpretation.
It is precisely the superficial nature of clothing, the fact that garments are immediately accessible to all, that makes them the go-to stand-in for more nuanced, complicated emotions and issues.
Seems “fit to print” to me.
You can’t really rest assured. Neo-Nazis kill plenty of people.
Also … not sure I’d call Charlie Hebdo “Liberal”… more like the opposite of that.
From the article:
But to dismiss all this as merely much ado about heels, or an example of the pettiness of our divided electorate, is to ignore the reality of the current conversation around the president — to pretend not to notice how sensitized everyone has become to his unpredictable reactions to major events, and to deny the power of the telling detail to invite applause, condemnation or misinterpretation.
The petty reality of the “current conversation around the president” is that created precisely by stupid, petty articles like this one right from the very top of the mainstream media food chain.
Okay. So you don’t understand what the Fashion & Style section of a periodical is about. Noted.
Of course I understand what the Fashion & Style section is about, at least in the New York Times. It is to try to inject a political meaning into something entirely unrelated to politics because Trump.
Yeah, they’re very much not liberal.
No. You apparently don’t understand because the Fashion & Style section of most major publications regularly comment on whatever the POTUS and FLOTUS wears. This isn’t liberal or conservative, unless you want to generalize that most artists and fashion designers tend to fall on the more liberal side of the spectrum, which fair point, I guess.
If you read the article, (I mean after taking off whatever crazy anti-NYT glasses you have on) you’d see that the author is doing a few things that most assuredly fall in the general Fashion & Style agenda. First, she’s tooting her own fashion savvy horn - always a must for the runway set. Second, she notes that the controversy is caused largely by the inherent social meaning of the shoes. They’re stiletto heels. Uncomfortable. Expensive. Elite. What they mean and how society interprets them on the FLOTUS leads into the third part of the article; that fashion is a message unto itself. You can screw yourself up politically by not considering that.
It is precisely the superficial nature of clothing, the fact that garments are immediately accessible to all, that makes them the go-to stand-in for more nuanced, complicated emotions and issues.
This Mrs. Trump understands, which is why she changed into a more suitable costume (I use that word deliberately) for her arrival in Corpus Christi, Tex. The problem is that, as first lady, in an environment as fraught as the current one, there is no such thing as offstage. Even boarding a plane becomes a quasi-official moment in which all messaging, spoken or assumed, is mined for meaning.
Look, I’m on your side on the liberal brouhaha over the shoes. I’ve said as much in the Trump wisdom thread, but here, under a fashion & style banner, there is nothing wrong with stating that shoes can cause a tempest in a tea pot for FLOTUS. This article is explaining why there’s a brouhaha over these shoes. This is akin to the articles noting that you generally shouldn’t wear open-toed man sandals to a job interview.
SJWs got another professor fired for a tweet:
(I know, I know, coudln’t resist posting here though)
Eh, they are in that they are very much against being restricted by conventional social norms.
Not sure who or what you are talking about here but other than some nut individual who described himself as a neo-nazi have they done any group sanctioned killing lately.
Blaming the entire group on what some crazy nut did could be used to color many political groups. The left isn’t exactly free of nuts.
I guess. I always categorized them as assholes. No need to assign them to right or left, really.
https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/902937516822609922
https://twitter.com/NewAmerica/status/902929634592948224
Right-wing domestic terrorists kill quite a few people. As far as group sanctioning… that’s basically their ideology at the end of the day. Just because they didn’t sit down and say “We’re gonna kill THIS guy.” They are saying: “We should kill all these kinds of people,” so it’s kind of semantics when your world view is basically “Hitler was right and did a good thing.”
I think the concept you may be looking for is “stochastic violence”.