Npr - Tumblr Posts
JAQing off, “I’m Just Asking Questions!”, is the preferred use of "True Principled Conservatives” on message boards such as NPR.
These fellows (no sic) can be spotted by their reciting of right-wing bullshit, and asking others to prove the non-provable.
They were fans of George W. Bush until he became the lowest-rated, least-popular president in a century (until Trump). They like those three quotes from MLK and ignore all the others about war, poverty, built-in racism, and how black people own guns for defense.
They congregate in the safe spaces of mainstream media where right-wingers with great breath control spew talking points and polite hosts don’t say anything, and the most reliable way for liberal points to get on the air is by call-in participation.
The white male style of debate is to antagonize you until you snap. Then they win by default, because they make up their own rules in which being upset automatically invalidates your argument. The key is also to argue about things that they have no stake and experience in, so they dont snap first. Of course in the event that they do snap first, its of course passion, not anger…
White people are like little kids who make up new rules and obnoxious powers to keep themselves from losing….
At the end of it all, they are happy that you are so civil and can debate things rationally and clearly without getting upset. Everyone shakes hands and thanks everyone for being able to discuss “conflicting” viewpoints. Because after all everyone needs to hear the opposing side to truly be sophisticated. Even if you’ve heard that side all your life and it completely devalues you as a human being.
What i hear is that the mark of civilization to white people is being dehumanized and taking it like a champ.
They also have little to no concept of power dynamics in these ‘sophisticated” discussions.
By the time I get into bed, I find myself picking up my phone and just scrolling and scrolling and scrolling. I stay up past my bedtime, despite being exhausted and knowing I'd be better off going to sleep. This behavior is called "revenge bedtime procrastination."
(via How to stop revenge bedtime procrastination and get better sleep)
"Revenge bedtime procrastination" refers to a phenomenon where individuals, who feel that they lack control over their daytime activities, intentionally delay going to bed as a way to reclaim a sense of freedom and leisure during the late evening or early morning hours. This behavior often involves staying up late to engage in activities such as watching TV, browsing the internet, playing video games, or using social media.
The movie was delightful. Gif for emphasis.!
Dreams are a strange place where unusual things can happen. Most people see the dreams when they sleep and then join with the waking world. My boyfriend occasionally brings his dreams with him when he wakes up.
They call this a Night Terror and he finds is most disconcerting and unnerving. He can wake up and believe that there are things or people in our home glowering at him from the shadows. For me, the job is pretty much to wake up in time and hug him straight away to remind him that it’s not real, sometimes I catch it and sometimes I don’t, but I’m no longer really bothered by these incidents at all.
I wasn’t bothered to begin with, but to put it frankly, we’ve reached the point where the cat and I don’t really bat an eyelash and just shrug our upper extremity joints at one another.
A few nights ago, he brought a most curious dream out.
“Baby turn on the light.”
I rolled over.
“Would you just turn on the light? I think there’s someone in here.”
I fumbled with the side of the bed and turned on the lamp. I’ve put the idea of arguing otherwise out of my mind, the waking dreams are not often a lengthy affair and I can usually fall asleep shortly after. After confirming that there was indeed no one in our apartment and performing a patrol of the great room, the kitchen and the bathroom, he got back into bed.
During this security inspection, the cat and I just stared at one another. We hang out on my days off and he will often sit in my lap while I play video games but for the most part the cat and I don’t really talk much. In this instance, in the case of this matter, we needed no words. “He’ll settle down in a minute, no point in getting up.”
“I thought there was a panda in our room.”
“The bear?”
“Sent by the IMF.”
“The International Monetary Fund?”
“Yes!”
“To do what, bring austerity measures to our apartment?”
“No he was just doing a little dance in the middle of the room.”
“The IMF sent a dancing panda after us?”
“Well, obviously that’s not logical so I thought it must be a person.”
“... Why a panda?”
“I’m sure I don’t know.”
“... and the IMF?”
“Too much NPR.”
“Ah. Good night love.”
I love Christopher Rizer. In our life together I never have to worry that I’m not valued, that there will be no stimulating discussion or that there will ever be a deficit of whimsy.
“"I would say my estimated readership is at least 120K," Ukazu tells me in an email conversation. "10k people check out [my] updates whenever they're posted. And it might be more interesting to talk about the 5000 fanfictions that have been posted on the fanfiction site AO3." Plus, a recent Kickstarter for "Check Please" raised about $100,000 in an hour. (It eventually cleared about a quarter of million.)”
http://www.npr.org/2017/05/11/527821553/with-check-please-a-comics-creator-rewrites-the-rules-and-scores
...Should someone tell them it might not be a good idea to keep up an unfiltered link to AO3 on the NPR website? The first link right now on that page is an A/B/O knotting fic, which, you do you, fandom!, but...
Since Dobbs, doctors see a growing number of vasectomies : NPR
pssst— for friends who struggle with sleep anxiety, downloading the npr app is a lifesaver. genuinely. listening to hourly classical on my local station as i scroll through my phone is heavenly
Wait wait... don't tell me!
April 25. 2014 on NPR
Carl reads three news-related limericks: Now Someone Else Can Cause Forest Fires; Snooze and Lose; The Surly Years.
Taken from the official website
Never Say Never
Yesterday, while on lunch break from working at Crerar and while munching on a cheeseburger from Sammy’s, I was listening to last week's On the Media podcast. It surpasses other shows on NPR in terms of intelligence, media and cultural awareness, and, most importantly, depth, by a very wide margin. It’s far more refreshing than anything I’ve ever heard on “Fresh Air” or “All Things Considered.” The former, in fact, often gives me this feeling of sadness from its blatant display of generational and class gaps—gaps that On the Media, on the other hand, excels at traversing, largely because it does not try to hide them. Although it pays attention to what’s going on in the world currently, it focuses on a specific part of a world event, especially its “representation” in the media, as well as how the media works around it, with a level of skill and proficiency that, again, is unmatched on NPR or anywhere. I know this because working in Crerar is the kind of endeavor that has made me dependent on both the many programs of NPR as well as, of course, the cheeseburgers from Sammy’s.
I think part of the reason why it stands out is that, liberal, or yuppie, or high-brow, or not, NPR still has to pander to its audience. It presents a lot of information from around the world, but there’s still a lot of condensing and synthesizing for a mass audience that’s going on. In any case, I didn’t intend to write this in order to condemn NPR in any way, I’m just trying to show, I guess, how good ‘On the Media’ really is.
There are two tensions at work in today’s media—or maybe they were always tensions in media and news throughout their history—being both entertaining, as in something that you want to pay attention to because you’re getting something out of it and enjoying it on some level, and the slightly different thirst to be informed. On the radio especially, I think this plays out in the attempt to be intelligent and informative as well as avoiding dryness. On the Media mostly dodges that bullet, but it is so good at exploring a certain media phenomena or mechanisms that sometimes it gets a little bit too intricate. But I mean that only in the sense that sometimes its analyses are so complex that they turn sort of boring and fail to sustain my attention while I’m also checking my email.
In any case, part of last week’s episode of On the Media focused on the protests in Libya, in particular focusing on OTM producer and correspondent Sarah Abdurrahman and her part in the resistance from “laptops in Washington DC.” The piece and the accompanying interview were both very good, but the point that particularly struck me was one in which Sarah, explaining the struggles of the protestors, began to cry despite her fiercest struggles against it.
I had a very sudden, almost visceral reaction: I was amazed as well as ashamed; in awe of her ability to feel so much for the struggle and for other people who were distant from her in so many ways. It was then that I decided to give myself the unattainable, impossible, and incredibly idealistic goal of never crying for myself again until I cry for someone else. Suddenly I was disgusted by the idea of feeling sorry for yourself to such an extent that you indulgently weep, for hours, embracing the action of sadness and making it an artifact separate from whatever it was that made you sad in the first place.
I did say that it was unattainable and unrealistic, but so are many goals. The next mental jump that my mind made was to realize that, in some ways, she was crying for herself. She’s personally connected to many Libyan protestors, and in the interview you don’t get the sense that she’s in Washington, DC, but in every way one of the people on the street. So you can make a heavy-handed argument for the ways in which she’s not a “self-less”
That’s a modern claim of our society, right? That there’s no such thing as altruism, that we’re all “selfish” actors and that, moreover, the world is better that way? What this segment made me think is that this claim isn’t as nasty as one might think—that the two things I’ve been trying to separate, ie, Sarah’s deep emotional commitment to the needs of others versus her own deep emotional needs, are in fact inseparable. If, in fact, there is no altruism and we’re all selfless actors, and if every single act of human nature can in some way be brought back to a goal that includes just yourself, then isn’t it all the more impressive that taking part in any kind of activism because you want to look and seem like a good person can elicit such actually good results?
I want to be a force for good in the world, I want to be the good I want to see in the world. I’m sure a big part of that has to do with my wanting to be in some way superior, I’m sure you can even make an argument that it all goes back to sex, that being an impressive person would lead more impressive people to make impressive babies with me, but I’ll take that. Even if everything I do for others is selfish—at least it’s one less selfish thing that’s turned inward.
Or something. This is all jumbled. I left my wallet at the Maroon and I don’t know how I’m going to pay rent. Wait, that makes it seem as if I don't know how I'm going to pay rent because I left my wallet in the Maroon. But it's mostly because my dad hasn't given me the money for our cell phone bill. But mostly I need my ID to check out books! Sad undergraduate life. But hey, I’m not going to cry about it, rite?
