Meghna Sridhar for The Amherst Student
When I read through my first draft of this article, incomplete, written over a month ago and forgotten in the crevices of one of my many draft article ideas folders, I nearly threw up my tea in my mouth. “On the dialectic of intellectual elitism and egalitarian accessibility” was my working title, and it just got worse from there on in. It was written in vague, hazy academese, with liberal arts college major words like “paradigmatic,” “praxis” and everyone’s favorite, “problematic”, cushioned in every single sentence. Worse still, it was an article that was supposed to be about journalism, academic elitism and accessibility.
Accessibility and intellectualism are hotly contested terms amongst the political left, and I often find myself torn between two very valid arguments regarding them. The ivory tower of leftist academia is well known and rigorously criticized: what does it mean to have a political philosophy that is all about “empowering the masses” (a very condescending term in and of itself) that is written in language that is ostensibly inaccessible to the people it is writing in support of? What does it mean to write in a language, in obtuse terms and in lofty, complex syntax, about theories meant to be emancipate precisely the people who will never have access to them? Further, writing in academic terminology is often — there is no other word for it — masturbatory. Academic writing often seems to serve no purpose but to be a self-congratulatory, self-contained discourse where academics talk with themselves and nobody else, and celebrate their own complex ideas without looking outside their bubble. What is the use of academic leftism that has the same intellectual rigour, but also same intellectual inaccessibility, as graduate level mathematics? Youngist.org recently had a good article that explained it in much clearer terms that I could. Entitled “The Revolution will not be cited,” the article claimed that, “[the goals of leftist activism] were met in conflict with a desire in academia to concentrate knowledge among groups of specialized elites, instead of a focus on popularizing this knowledge for the greater good. Try reading any academic text from your local women’s studies, ethnic studies, post-colonial studies or anthropology department. The texts are almost always written so that only academics can understand.”
Read more @: http://amherststudent.amherst.edu/?q=article/2014/02/18/elitism-academia-and-journalism
Meghna Sridhar for The Amherst Student
When I read through my first draft of this article, incomplete, written over a month ago and forgotten in the crevices of one of my many draft article ideas folders, I nearly threw up my tea in my mouth. “On the dialectic of intellectual elitism and egalitarian accessibility” was my working title, and it just got worse from there on in. It was written in vague, hazy academese, with liberal arts college major words like “paradigmatic,” “praxis” and everyone’s favorite, “problematic”, cushioned in every single sentence. Worse still, it was an article that was supposed to be about journalism, academic elitism and accessibility.
Accessibility and intellectualism are hotly contested terms amongst the political left, and I often find myself torn between two very valid arguments regarding them. The ivory tower of leftist academia is well known and rigorously criticized: what does it mean to have a political philosophy that is all about “empowering the masses” (a very condescending term in and of itself) that is written in language that is ostensibly inaccessible to the people it is writing in support of? What does it mean to write in a language, in obtuse terms and in lofty, complex syntax, about theories meant to be emancipate precisely the people who will never have access to them? Further, writing in academic terminology is often — there is no other word for it — masturbatory. Academic writing often seems to serve no purpose but to be a self-congratulatory, self-contained discourse where academics talk with themselves and nobody else, and celebrate their own complex ideas without looking outside their bubble. What is the use of academic leftism that has the same intellectual rigour, but also same intellectual inaccessibility, as graduate level mathematics? Youngist.org recently had a good article that explained it in much clearer terms that I could. Entitled “The Revolution will not be cited,” the article claimed that, “[the goals of leftist activism] were met in conflict with a desire in academia to concentrate knowledge among groups of specialized elites, instead of a focus on popularizing this knowledge for the greater good. Try reading any academic text from your local women’s studies, ethnic studies, post-colonial studies or anthropology department. The texts are almost always written so that only academics can understand.”
Read more @: http://amherststudent.amherst.edu/?q=article/2014/02/18/elitism-academia-and-journalism
I love that “homage,” “pastiche,” “reboot,” “retelling,” and “fanfic” all mean the same damn thing, except that the last one is written primarily by women for free, and often includes sex, especially queer sex, so it’s delegitimized in the eyes of society.
And by “I love” I mean “I don’t love” because apparently we can just pick and choose what words mean
In the heat of battle, photographer Horace Bristol captured one of the most unique and erotic photos of WWII.
Bristol photographed a young crewman of a US Navy “Dumbo” PBY rescue mission, manning his gun after having stripped naked and jumped into the water of Rabaul Harbor to rescue a badly burned Marine pilot. The Marine was shot down while bombing the Japanese-held fortress of Rabaul.
“…we got a call to pick up an airman who was down in the Bay. The Japanese were shooting at him from the island, and when they saw us they started shooting at us. The man who was shot down was temporarily blinded, so one of our crew stripped off his clothes and jumped in to bring him aboard. He couldn’t have swum very well wearing his boots and clothes. As soon as we could, we took off. We weren’t waiting around for anybody to put on formal clothes. We were being shot at and wanted to get the hell out of there. The naked man got back into his position at his gun in the blister of the plane.”
Was going to recreate the first character I made for Skyrim which was for the Xbox but I forgot to disable a mod or two…oops
I think he appreciates Dalish more? Since his mother was Dalish, I think it has a few other dialogues. But other than that not much changes, he’s not fussy Is he lol
o yeah theres that, but im not sure if he ever outright says that either
zevran takes what he gets lmao
to be honest i dont think it matters, ive only ever romanced him with a dalish elf but i dont imagine there would be much of a difference if you did it with a city elf, or any other race, aside from maybe minor dialogue changes? if youre talking plotwise…….. i dont think that would matter much either, his romance path is more about the warden bettering him than anything else
Eylül Cansın committed suicide in Istanbul by jumping off the Bosphorus Bridge the night before.
Her name was Eylül Cansın, please make this go as viral as Leelahs story.
An extract from the video she shared just two hours before committing suicide:
"I couldn’t. I couldn’t because people did not let me. I couldn’t work, I wanted to do stuff, I couldn’t… You get me? They impeded with me many times; they made me suffer a lot."
Eylül Cansın was a victim of systematic and pervasive transphobia that blocked her from pursuing life goals and achievements as simple as getting a job. If you think this isn’t a huge issue, you’re wrong. The system does not support trans women. It is up to us to draw attention to this and to have the system that failed this woman changed so it does not continue to fail many more.
is this because of your friend, Jowan? I knew he was a blood mage and I try to be open but… did he turn you into a blood mage? Have you tried not being a blood mage? Maybe you just haven’t found the right entropy spell yet. What will our revered mother think?