The bar was walked into by the passive voice.
Guys. GUYS. This is such a good read. Well, infuriating. Because society is the worst. But also illuminating and encouraging in that it’s-not-you-it’s-them kind of way. And the links! It’s rich with wonderful links!
Good read if you’ve been following this case.
They reached their funding goal, and I think that’s good. But it was pointed out to me that there seems to be no discussion of gay WOMEN’s voices. I get that they say “gay men” a lot in the description, so they aren’t talking about all gay people I guess, but the title and intro says “sounding gay,” and gay women deal with this too.
I’m not saying everything has to be about everything, but to silence gay women when you’re literally talking about gay voices…it’s almost ironic, except that it’s pretty standard.
Consider the opening stanza: “Put your flags up in the sky
And then wave ‘em side to side
Show the world where you’re from
Show the world we are one.”
Clearly this functions dialectically to expose the contradictions inherent in the ideological construction of globalised sporting competitions as capable of uniting divided nations at the precise moment when those nations are divisively expressing their national identities in the most reified manner.
So…JK. But this is a good read.
What I think it is: Working until midnight every Thursday to find a way to not work Fridays.
What my parents think it is: Space travel and robot doctors.
Spike Lee on Gentrification: Rant or Speech?
All the major news websites are calling Spike Lee’s answer to question on gentrification at a recent Q&A a “rant.” Do we always call things like that rants? What makes one thing a rant and something else a speech? Or an “impromptu speech” at least? Or just an “answer” to a question?
I looked up rant: “speak or shout at length in a wild, impassioned way.”
We say rant on Vegansaurus usually when we write about something when we’re agitated. But it bothers me a little because I think the term is used to undermine what you say. But maybe being angry at all undermines what you say? But if someone is being really offensive, why can’t you be angry? And why can’t your argument still be solid even if you’re angry? That seems like an arbitrary societal thing. Nothing about being angry or impassioned actually makes what you’re saying more or less valid.
I’ve also wondered if the Vegansaurus writers were all men, would it still be a rant? I think that’s why “rant” stuck out to me when I googled Spike Lee and gentrification. I’m wondering if Lee were white, would it still be a rant? I doubt it. If a white male said something equally thought-provoking and off-the-cuff, I think people would be falling all over him with praise.
That’s obviously speculation, but still, why does Lee’s answer have to be a rant? Why can’t it be an impassioned answer? Or even a “diatribe”—what’s wrong with diatribe? Is that too validating?
The Atlantic’s summary of Buzzfeed’s style guide, which I guess Buzzfeed published recently. I love everything about this. Especially this rule, which I always try to apply in ad copy and people still insist on fighting it:
There are, it’s worth noting, a couple instances in which Buzzfeed’s guide lists exceptions to its own rules. And when are those to be deployed? In those cases, the document says, when following the original rule just “looks weird.”
Amen. Get on this train, people.
I also like this bit from the guide:
- Genre names should always be lowercase (new wave, indie, hip-hop, etc.). Exceptions: K-pop, J-pop, R&B.
"Exceptions: K-pop" would have made a great post title, no? (Hint: yes)