I'm not a big fan of the idea of hope, at least when applied to the question of whether the world is going to turn out well or not. Hope is rather nebulous.
Sometimes it seems only a question of person disposition, whether they feel good about the future and that it will be worth living through, in which case it is a…

I quite like the Toast. Lots of literature based jokes, the sense of a general blog hang out though and earnest telling of experiences though, so I imagine it wouldn't be everyone's cup tea.

She had a cameo in one episode. I sort of want the Tom Bombadil song.

To me that implies you are unfamiliar the sounds used in her music, to a point where you are struggling to distinguish individuals sound. Most of the individual words she uses are actually pretty straightforward (though she does use some more obscure words on occasion), even if she uses a lot of them.

Trying to unpack wordplay is a terrible way of attempting to get into Joanna Newsom anyway. It too easy to get distracted by the sounds, the rising and falling harshness, to put together a sense of story to the words at once.

I think most people just notice how both stretch, manipulate words and drag out words to fit in a certain space of time. It one similarity they notice and tend to forget or not notice most of the rest.

I don't think so. At least I've never heard anything about Newsom playing on Bjork albums.

The irony is that is makes you the one obsessed with the "big picture." You are the one who really wants the world to be more than it is. Rather than be content with a variety of meaningful minutiae we encounter every day, which inevitably ends with our own non-existence, you are desperate for there to a "big…

I'd say most likely not. Being entertained by someone ugliness is basically to reveal in how they are of lesser value because if their appearance. No doubt we are not obligated to find everyone on the Earth attractive, but that doesn't mean we need to degrade others for not being attractive. Especially when it comes…

But that's false dichotomy. We can give "practical advice" without proclaiming or implying it is the cause of rape. There is no need to promote "feelings" over "reality." All we need to do is avoid the crass characterisation of a "to-do list" which will supposedly ensure someone won't get raped.

Well yes… but the point is that the sexist arseholes who don't want to inflict bodily harm are, ethically, just as much of problem as those who do. The point of "rape culture" is harmful stuff which shouldn't happen and is linked together with how we understand and respond to rape victims. Rape culture isn't about…

I know what exactly what I'm talking about.

You've misunderstood. My point was sort of the opposite. I was saying that "Be cautious and aware of the situation" tends to leave the implication whatever happens on someone is their fault.

They are actually pretty close to each other. "Be cautious and aware of the situation" is not practical advice (e.g. watch your drink, avoid being alone, etc., etc.). It is a dangling implication that anything that happens is ON YOU.

But that's silly because you, firstly, assume that the women speaking is only talking form antidotal evidence, when you know, she might be speaking from her experiences related to wider understanding of studied issues.

Not to put a too finer point on it, but this is sort of why a "conversation" cannot be had. Men assume they are right and categorically dismiss women' experiences. Supposedly, it "means nothing and refers to nothing." Wafflicious made direct argument that you were expressing an understanding with was contrary to her…

The point is actually that they are kinda of the same. All those instances involve viewing women as sexual objects to be consumed. Interconnection between misogyny and gender role is the point. Rape culture isn't specifically about instances of rape. It is also about (maybe even mainly about) how wider society…

I think that's mostly people who haven't learnt to think beyond the issue which is closest to their heart. In understanding how people of various groups are devalued in discourse, a prominent question about social issues is whether what someone is thinking or saying is leaving someone out or automatically assuming one…

I don't think its that different. The Left has been squabbling over identity for ages. It's basically inevitable because the Left pays attention to how people understand and value each other in society. Identity is critical to the Left because it forms the basis from which a better society is built. Protecting…

Too many words? Probably. Little? Not at all. It is perhaps the most critical point in the context of labels and identity.