othertimes
OtherTimes
othertimes

You raise a good point about students likely becoming familiar with the security protocols and potentially identifying the weaknesses. Work in any place long enough and you come to learn where the blind spots in the security cameras are or which door doesn’t close correctly. And the idea that everyone on the right is

Sick is the only word to describe it. They’re so fucking sick.

And the conservatives are already screeching about how rude progressives are (as if being upset by mass murder is some far-left ideological position).

January 6th? Legitimate political discourse.
Why do school shootings happen? It’s because schools have doors.
But the real threat facing America? Oh, it’s that someone s

They’ve been workshopping the door deflection for a few years now. It’s not a serious proposal. Well, I mean, it is serious that they would ever dare propose such nonsense. But they have no intention of implementing any door-related overhaul of our education infrastructure because it’s irrational gibberish. It’s just

So, there are a few elements at play here. BU is an expensive school and I assume the mean ROI on an acting BFA is probably low. But I see no need to deny that kid relief because I disapprove of the choices he made. That’s what I was getting at about judgement. I don’t know him. I don’t know his story and I’m not

There are fair criticisms one can make regarding means-testing. Many seem to unquestionably accept it as sound policy without too much thought. But it is certainly fair to ask if it is effective policy. How are we defining income, and can need be adequately assessed based solely on income? Does means-testing actually

I mean, of course you’re right. But that still doesn’t make any sense for a variety of reasons. The GOP seems to have mostly moved beyond the strategy of softening extreme rhetoric on order to maintain moderate support. Furthermore the excuse given here is not much of a fig leaf at all. I find it hard to imagine the

I agree. Protesting and marching is undeniably important. But the visuals of angry people marching to advance liberal causes will be looped in with some instance of violence or vandalism (whether directly related or not, doesn’t matter). And that combination will inevitably be used to push the narrative about how

I guess I don’t understand why they’re trying to spin it at all. I mean, she said. It’s a term that means something to her base of support. She’s hardly alone in her use of it to attack anyone who disagrees with her. Why act like it means anything other then how she meant it?

I just don’t see how the optics improve by

I would argue that categorizing those killed by the murderous heads of state of ~communist countries as “victims of communism” is lazy and deceptive. Besides, the US backed Pol Pot because the Khmer Rouge opposed communist Vietnam. One could argue that the victims of the Khmer Rouge were victims of America’s

American conservatives are less inclined towards empathy than American liberals. Various studies have explored this. The question then becomes, what do we do with this information? Telling the GOP to be more empathic is unlikely to work.

The way this appears to be going, I expect that all forms of contraception will eventually be targeted. You might say “oh no.. the men in power aren’t willing to sacrifice their access to condoms”. Maybe. Maybe not. But that doesn’t mean they won’t take them away from everyone else. Besides, the people in power

I assume that they’ll erode the filibuster with carve outs that suit their specific wants. You know, “issues surrounding fetal life can’t be filibustered” or somethong. 

I agree with the sentiment, but it is worth point out that (according to the CNN story) the district’s policy on hair also bans mullets and probably most of what you’ve pictured here. It also bans boy’s hair that extends below the eyebrows. That being said, I assume there is some disproportionate enforcement of the

From a semiotics perspective I would say that the meaning of symbols can change over time, but for the most part I agree with what you’re saying. And I definitely do not have any answers. I’ve just been thinking a lot about how progressive messages get weaponized by bad faith actors or misconstrued by low-engagement

Shouldn’t effective symbols show what you’re for rather against? Nuance and even “if/then” messaging is often lost on the public in broad campaigns such as this. Look at how a slogan like “Defund the Police” was misconstrued and weaponized against police reform movements. “If abortion is outlawed, then...” is too

Define “Mainstream media”. CNN, Washington Post, the Guardian, Financial Times, et al. have all reported on the Azov Battalion’s relationship with Nazism.

I completely agree that there is a conversation to be had about the presence of such militia groups in Ukraine, but 1) far-right militias are unfortunately not

100% agree.

I don’t really disagree with you other than to say that the steady stream of images and voices coming from Ukraine is distinctly different from what we have experienced elsewhere. Unlike the Gulf/Iraq wars, it’s not just a polished CNN narrative that is shaping our perception, it is the chaos of clips and scenes that

I don’t understand the point being made here. Unless I’m missing something, this comes off as a self-own by Jez. Friedman’s piece may not be the most insightful op-ed about the war in Ukraine, but (unlike the critique published here) it is cogent and fairly well argued.

If you have a critique of Friedman’s piece,