An angel that appeared to me in my garden last night.
A very important update- it found some of my strawberries. I have plenty others to share though, so I’m happy to provide.
June in Alberta
After the Party - Outi Kirves , 2023.
Finnish , b. 1960 -
Woodcut , 66 x 59 cm.
Dr Seward is SO determined to not be in a Gothic novel and honestly I cannot fault him for this
automa 3
"backstage at a live event" is perhaps my favourite human collective emotion ive ever experienced. From running through the creepy empty school hallways before a theatre show, to the staff only breakroom at a convention or event where youre running a stall, to the bridal suite getting ready before your bestie walks down the isle.
Theres a little wall between the guys who are 'in on it' with you, whatever it is, and your audience or customers or guests or just all those people who are *not* in on it. Youve got a wallkie talkie, or a backstage pass, or an exhibitor badge, and youve never felt more alive
it's really funny teaching rhetoric to college freshmen because i explained ad hominem to them via example by arguing with a student over something silly (i kept insisting 25 minutes was a quarter of an hour, not 15) and then "insulted" her instead of addressing her argument (i said she doesn't have a college degree whereas i have two, so of course she'd be wrong - which the whole point is that it's a stupid insult but not something that's actually mean) but she got soooooo mad so even when i stopped the exercise and explained that she was indeed correct (15 minutes is a quarter of an hour). like she was still fuming. so i validated her feelings on that, complimented her, and even reminded the class that a college degree doesn't mean that a person is smart/right. and then i went on to explain that, yeah, dirty arguing techniques like that are meant to make you so unreasonably angry that you can't respond or that you lose your cool, so your opponent looks like they win by default. the student i was arguing with then just said that it seemed like professional ragebaiting and i was like. well yeah that's correct.
and then this kid, this one kid who is always very eager to answer questions and is always kind to his classmates, raised his hand looking a little bothered. now for context, i emphasize thinking for yourself in my classroom, even if that means disagreeing with something i say and he has echoed some stuff that his parents clearly have told him before. he's not a bad kid or an asshole, he's just an 18 year old with conservative parents who otherwise knows nothing about politics. but he just looks so bothered after i explain this about dirty arguing techniques. big frown on his face. looking unsure. when i nod at him to speak, he says, in a very quiet voice, "didn't -- didn't charlie kirk used to do that?"
and i was like. well yes. yes he was famous for stuff like this.
and then the kid looked down and was just like, "oh. i thought he was just really good at debating. i never watched his videos though, only clips. why would he do that?"
and that coincidentally lined up perfectly with the rest of the lesson, which was on propaganda
this? is why conservatives hate liberal arts education
ALT
ALT
ALT
ALT
ALT
ALT
ALT
ALT
ALT
ALTA selection of strange and cryptic personal ads from The New York Herald, 1850s-1870s. 20/?
Out of pure curiosity, do you know how people felt about these when they were obviously planning to do something frowned upon, e.g. Mrs JND and Manetta DE's apparent affair? Was there ever any push for newspapers not to supply advertising space for this kind of thing?
Oh they were absolutely controversial and a frequent target of morality reformers.
By the late-1880s the column had devolved from the personal messages of the mid-century to consist largely of scams, guerilla advertising, and young ladies seeking the "assistance" of wealthy gentlemen (read: sugar daddies) and vice versa, often under the barely-there guise of seeking a husband.
A few ads abandoned discretion entirely...
By 1906 the Herald had become the target of an large-scale investigation by then-district attorney Henry L. Stimson, which was very publicly backed by William Randolph Hearst (whose participation I'm sure had nothing to do with that fact the The Herald was a large competitor).
The investigation, which included sting operations, concluded that "over two-thirds of the "personals" published have a hidden meaning which is harmful to the moral welfare of the community".
In the end the Herald was fined $31,000 for "improper use of the mails" - a favorite charge of morality crusaders used to prosecute the distribution of everything from erotica to information about contraception - and a much sanitized version of the personal column resulted.
(For the record, I personally didn't interpret the Mrs. JND/Manetta personal as an affair, but as two women attempting to buy property without their husband's knowledge - possibly in an attempt to escape and unhappy or abusive marriage. Though they could very well have been buying that property because they were madly in love with each other.)
how it feels deleting the ?source=share from a link you copied to deny them the extra bit of analytics
