I’ve gotten papers with little comments or song lyrics embedded in the prose. I assumed they were little tests to see if I was actually reading the paper. I note it as a technique of surveillance or accountability.
Thanks to openculture.org for the image.
This is a whole extra level of thoughtfulness. Rick-rolling without really altering the content of your paper.
I wonder if this was really a paper for this class or was it made as a gag?
Shout out to openculture.org for the story.
Filed under academics, communication, hacking, media, music
I like this article on anti-gay language in hip hop (although the title seems unnecessary). The above graphic is from the much hated rapgenius.com (not affiliated with the GZA). But the graphic was included in a nice long write up on Gawker by Rich Juzwiak where he does some lyrical analysis. While discussing a Frank Ocean lyric Juzwiak writes:
“This is a conversation that hasn’t made its way to mainstream hip-hop before now. It’s probably not as tidy as the most sensitive listeners would prefer. There’s ambiguity there as to whether Ocean’s proposed gunplay is a reaction to homophobia (because saying “faggot” is wrong) or an insult (because being “faggot” is wrong). Ocean is typically terse and selective on these identity matters—it’s possible that he’s still working out this question himself.”
When talking about the number of hit records that seemed to have made it without needing verbal violence toward gay people, Juzwiak explains:
“Hip-hop doesn’t hate gay people. Not all of it, at least. Even when it stumbles in these attempts, even when rappers don’t exhibit the full enlightenment that we’d want from them (Too $hort: “Just go with it, it’s just a lifestyle, you know, so whatever“), it’s still making attempts at engagement, which is more than it was doing even last year and far more than it was doing two years ago.
Still, we’re talking about a vast, varied pool of points of view and opinions. There’s still plenty of homophobic language.”
Here is the link to the article.
Filed under communication, Gay, hip hop, music, representation
December 26. Listen to every Ghostface Killah song, preferably in a robe with a magnum of champagne.
Bonus! The sweaters, the wig on Killer Mike, El-P’s combover, and some of the best lines of 2013.
Jody Rosen writes:
And, well, there’s a cat. It’s a nice-looking cat, of the gray-and-black tabby variety, and while I assume it’s Joni Mitchell’s pet, I hope it was a Hollywood stunt cat, because Mitchell subjects the poor thing to a series of spine-wrenching contortions not seen since Ferdinand II of Aragon sent my converso forbears packing off to the strappado. She dances a kind of pas de deux with the cat, see, which sounds cute, but in practice involves stretching and distending the feline’s extremities, twirling it in circles, lifting it overhead, etc. I can’t decide whether to contact the ASPCA about the statute of limitations on animal torture, or to make a bunch of GIFs and ROTFLMAO. In any case, I think we all can agree that “Dancin’ Clown” is the worst song ever, and the greatest video ever made. And that Joni Mitchell has no business owning a cat.
via Rosen on Joni Mitchell’s Worst Song — Vulture.
Thanks to Soul-sides for the link.
I appreciate Elton John speaking loudly about his opposition to the Russian anti-gay legislation in Russia. I also think this is an elegant justification for Elton John to circumvent a boycott.
It also happens to be a justification that probably makes Elton John a whole lot of money.
Don’t get me wrong, it is excellent to see pop stars expressing their politics. And I think Elton John is a super bad-ass. (Remember that he stood up to some heavy bullying and blackmail from a newspaper in the UK). And I think that he has credibility and status for his opinion to be widely amplified.
Filed under capitalism, communication, Gay, human rights, protest
I enjoyed an essay by David Dobbs in Aeon Magazine about genes. Key to the argument is a call for more complex understanding of the relationship between genes and evolutionary change.
The gene-centric view is thus ‘an artefact of history’, says Michael Eisen, an evolutionary biologist who researches fruit flies at the University of California, Berkeley. ‘It rose simply because it was easier to identify individual genes as something that shaped evolution. But that’s about opportunity and convenience rather than accuracy. People confuse the fact that we can more easily study it with the idea that it’s more important.’
The gene’s power to create traits, says Eisen, is just one of many evolutionary mechanisms. ‘Evolution is not even that simple. Anyone who’s worked on systems sees that natural selection takes advantage of the most bizarre aspects of biology. When something has so many parts, evolution will act on all of them.
‘It’s not that genes don’t sometimes drive evolutionary change. It’s that this mutational model — a gene changes, therefore the organism changes — is just one way to get the job done. Other ways may actually do more.’
via Why it’s time to lay the selfish gene to rest – David Dobbs – Aeon.
It seems to me that the arguments that the genetic code are read in different ways most challenges the notions about predictable genetic modification.
Describing Mary Jane West-Eberhard’s arguments about genes, Dobbs notes:
She does have her pithy moments. ‘The gene does not lead,’ she says. ‘It follows.’
There lies the quick beating heart of her argument: the gene follows. And one of the ways the gene follows is through this process called genetic accommodation.
I appreciate that it comes down to a battle of articulation — simple vs. complex. Communication, it always comes back to communication. Some ideas corrode against others and in this case the gene-centric model pushes out the ability to explain that ideas like the selfish gene . . . might be a little more complex than we think.
Yet West-Eberhard understands why many biologists stick to the gene-centric model. ‘It makes it easier to explain evolution,’ she says. ‘I’ve seen people who work in gene expression who understand all of this. But when they get asked about evolution, they go straight to Mendel. Because people understand it more easily.’ It’s easy to see why: even though life is a zillion bits of biology repeatedly rearranging themselves in a webwork of constantly modulated feedback loops, the selfish-gene model offers a step-by-step account as neat as a three-step flow chart. Gene, trait, phenotype, done.
via Why it’s time to lay the selfish gene to rest – David Dobbs – Aeon.
Filed under academics, communication, media, nature, representation, science
Life of refinement 
The Brain Scoop on bullying
Science video blogger Emily Graslie has a crisp response to the nasty emails she receives. Graslie hosts her show the Brain Scoop. I like the performative readings of the emails themselves.
Thanks Feministing for the link.
Leave a comment
Filed under academics, communication, feminism, human rights, media, representation, science
Tagged as accountability, accountability and the internet, accountability for sexism, Brain Scoop youtube channel, bullying excludes women from media access, bullying in comment sections, Emily Graslie, feministing, internet bullying