> The English word outrage is a loanword from French, where it was formed by combining the adverb outre (meaning "beyond") with the suffix -age; thus, the original literal meaning is "beyondness" – that is, beyond what is acceptable. The rebracketing as a compound of out- with the noun or verb rage has led to both a different pronunciation than the one to be expected for such a loanword (compare umbrage) and an additional meaning of "angry reaction" not present in French.
Brilliant. I'll need to make a point of pronouncing "outrage" to rhyme with "garage" from now on. "It is an oot-RAAZH!"
I posted a comment noting that some words can no longer be used because they resemble offensive words, even though they are etymologically unrelated.
I am ironically amused to note that the comment appears to have offended somebody or something sufficiently to make it disappear, even though it did not contain any actual offensive words.
...Can no longer be used without fumbling into people that assume the rest intends to speak demotic, "Fixed That For You".
> some words can no longer be used because they resemble offensive words
I find it very interesting on a specific historic case that the original group, of difficult pronunciation for Europeans, in the Gulf of Guinea area, "n·gr", meaning "big river", naming the Niger river and nearby countries, happened to be so close to the Latin for "black" - which is already in a way offensive, with its potential as some "reduction to appearance". (Of course, the Republic of the Niger and the Federal Republic of Nigeria correctly just shrug the coincidence off.)
Sadly I think those words have died, as victims of semantic pollution, through no fault of their own. Even though no dictionary will attest to an offensive meaning, they share enough phonemic material with malwords to trigger an immune response, which is not something you generally want to do to your readers.
> trigger an immune response, which is not something you generally want to do to your readers
In general, you expect readers not live «immune response[s]». It is called "sensation", and you either expect readers to be mature and having learnt to manage it as much as they learnt all other physiological and emotional and intellectual control, or if not mature you want to expose them to the world of serious adulthood for their awareness [rephrased: you do not hide adult behaviour: example must not be missed] - in which "sensation" has no part, replaced by distance, reflection and cool and objective consideration.
It is very odd to consider readers as "prone to sensation" (and that they could be legitimately so).
Depending on what you're writing, sensation might well be the entire purpose of the writing. So words that trigger the wrong sensation should absolutely be avoided, and not used to test the reader's maturity or anything like that.
However, these sensations are extremely cultural. As a non-American, it's funny to see Americans trying to impose their cultural sensitivities on other countries and cultures. Like criticising crayon brands for using the word "negro" on their black crayons. Or criticising people for using an online name that vaguely looks like a forbidden American word.
I also remember from many years ago an American interviewer trying to interview a black British athlete what it was like for him as an "African American". He corrected her that he's British, and she corrected to "African American Brit".
It's absolutely great that Americans are trying to rid themselves of racist slurs, but combined with American cultural imperialism it can lead to weird situations that can ironically come across as quite racist again, because other cultures refuse to play by the new (entirely justified) American sensitivity rules, because in those other cultures the words lack the racist connotation that they have in the US.
> I also remember from many years ago an American interviewer trying to interview a black British athlete what it was like for him as an "African American". He corrected her that he's British, and she corrected to "African American Brit".
Ah this is an old internet rumour. Either a) no footage of it survived to be on the internet or b) it was always a rumour.
Here's some discussions respectively from 2015 (trying to find it) and 2000 (stating a slightly different version of it):
It probably stems from before Youtube. Not everything on TV ends up on Youtube.
I've been googling this a bit, and I found a lot of people remembering seeing it on TV (but that's not conclusive either, because we can create fake memories about this sort of thing), but no link to a video. Best we can probably hope for is a confirmation or denial from Kriss Akabusi himself, but then someone has to ask him.
> Depending on what you're writing, sensation might well be the entire purpose of the writing
That would be immoral... Pornography is supposed to be an exception, a consensual experiment - not the standard of communication, on the opposite. When you deliberately try to make the reader lose control (e.g. for manipulation, or paternalistic trickery), that IS immoral.
> So words that trigger the wrong sensation
In whom? What makes "sensation" legitimate? How can you assume a reader will get that "sensation" - which, also, is not supposed to have in the first place? You say it yourself: «...trying to impose their cultural sensitivities on other countries and cultures...». There seems to be an attempt to create a "standard demotic" - but it remains demotic, and with extremely weak foundations without grounds for universality.
> not used to test the reader's maturity
No no no no no no no no - that was never meant (why should one do that? That is perverse, and something akin was the whole point). What was expressed is that you do not hide adulthood to children - otherwise, they will remain children.
Edit:
and by the way,
> However, these sensations are extremely cultural
Also the use of sensational language is "cultural", localized in some areas: you can see that it is found more frequently in some territories. It remains objectively immoral to attempt speaking to the visceral instead of the intellect. It is like tapping one's arm to steal from him. You communicate to provide further awareness, not to reduce it; to provide further abilities, not to lower them. If you did the latter, you'd be a criminal.
No. Again, no. "Sensation" is when people are open to be hit as if physiologically from what something suggests them (hence, 'suggestion') - it is lack of control. It is when a court accused Lenny Bruce of pornology when he used swearwords in his stand-up comedy performances - the accused him of eliciting arousal. You are not supposed to feel deeply overwhelming perturbances in front of swearwords: that is not how it works in adults - and if did, it would signal a problem. That is "sensation" (more common today in 'sensationalism'). It is when the Camelot knights faint in front of the "Knights who say 'Ni'".
Poetry and literature use language with mastery for the elevation of people who, since they have keys to appreciate it, must be expert enough to manage it - which means, all which is transmitted is mediated, digested. The ball is caught and managed, not taken in the face with strong notification from the nose.
Sensation is typical e.g. of the worse """political""" (multiply the bunny quotes there) speech and is allowed by those who want to "feel" instead of "consider". This attitude for the consensual receiver could be at most a "private time" activity which is like approaching «pornography[, ]supposed to be an exception, a consensual experiment - not the standard of communication, on the opposite». On the side of the proposer, those who attempt inducing sensation, it is immoral: it is degrading and damaging. Those who encourage the listener to rely on panic (lower, uncontrolled) responses instead of reflection, are criminals.
Also, about your misreading of my: «or if not mature you want to expose them to the world of serious adulthood for their awareness», to which I then added «[rephrased: you do not hide adult behaviour: example must not be missed]», nearby a member mentioned the idea of "avoiding the term 'homonym' ['homophone', 'homologue' etc.] just to be sure": because somebody may faint?! The rest should resort to crippled language?!?! You use 'homonym' and 'homophone' and 'homologue' because that is the language, the correct one, and all correct use is a model: you do not hide that to the immature (which would make them remain so), there is nothing like «test[ing] the reader's maturity», and to stop using 'homonym' because somebody may faint would be one apex of the absurd (and a dictatorship of the fools).
Seems to be un-deaded now, praise the mods! And on closer inspection there was one naughty word in there, although technically it's a homonym that happens to have the same spelling. (And "homonym" itself is probably best avoided.)
for comments that are 'killed' by user flags, other users can 'vouch' for the comment and I think if enough vouch flags are submitted, the comment re appear.
The article does not mention this, but it's quite probably the unvaccinated child in question is from the fast-expanding Hasidic community in Jerusalem, many of whom are strongly anti-vax. This has led to measles outbreaks in the past in NYC as well, and the community was also hit especially hard by COVID.
Many vaccines aren't vegan-friendly (they're often grown in eggs), and pretty much all of them go through animal testing stages during clinic trials. It's not at all surprising that vegans would be anti-vax.
From discussions with vegans I've known, the objection to eggs and dairy is largely based on the (mis) treatment of the animals as part of industrial scale production. It's not (usually) a mystical belief about the sanctity of some life essence - more about observable apparent suffering.
Unless carefully managed, a vegan diet has a chance of lacking some critical nutrients for the development of young children. I think a vitamin B12 deficiency is common.
Meat/fish and byproducts are generally considered a "quick fix" for a great many dietary issues. Giving a baby something with meat in it once a week when they start feeding, once a month after 2 years (or more often) will fix most diets. Any real vegan diet will need to consider a great many factors.
Even vegan diets that aren't going to kill you in the long term are still going to cause problems. For example, a vegan diet with >60% fruit (or fruit and grains), will cause amino acid shortages. Too little fruit, of course, causes Vitamin C shortages.
Luckily it's easy to fool yourself into eating meat. Many forms of candy, for example, are meat byproducts. So is, of course, a latte.
> Giving a baby something with meat in it once a week when they start feeding, once a month after 2 years (or more often) will fix most diets.
That's a pretty exceptional claim, that's not something I believe without a source.
> For example, a vegan diet with >60% fruit (or fruit and grains), will cause amino acid shortages. Too little fruit, of course, causes Vitamin C shortages.
And a meat based diet that doesn't include fruit, or very little has issues too.
How is milk from a breast of a human vegan?
Is there a definition of veganism that says an animal product that was given with consent is considered vegan?
There are a few different definitions of veganism, the word itself isn't very old and has often been used to describe not just the a plant-based diet, or abstaining from all animal products, but the philosophy behind it.
This is one of the reasons why currently "plant-based diet" is gaining traction, to take the emphasis off the word vegan because it's been connected to the animal rights and ethics of the vegan movement. [1]
> " I taught cooking classes for the national non-profit, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, and during that time, the phrase "plant-based diet" came to be used as a euphemism for vegan eating, or "the 'v' word." It was developed to take the emphasis off the word vegan, because some associated it with being too extreme a position, sometimes based exclusively in animal rights versus a health rationale."
I think it's easy to argue that, specifically, milk from the breast of your mother, as an infant, is not in conflict with any possible interpretation of veganism. It's of course not plant-based, but it is a very special case, as essentially as an infant you are not entirely a separate entity from your mother, even after birth.
B12 supplementation is recommended for a vegan diet at any age. Besides that, I'm not sure what you mean by careful management. Eating a normal varied diet where the proteins come from plant sources gets you covered.
Yet on the page strictly about babies and children, the recommendation is to "[use] a moderate amount of poultry meat and some red meat as a source of protein. [...] Eating fish two to three times a week is recommended for the whole family."
There's far too many stories of babies dying of malnutrition on vegan diets. While it's possible to make them healthier for them, let's not go saying it's recommended, just like children can survive on crappy junk food (and plenty of them sadly have to), provided it's fortified with nutrients for them. There's a difference between surviving and thriving.
That site is a bit confusingly laid out; the page I linked to introduces the vegan diet for all age groups, while the part you quoted concerns the recommendations for the omnivore diet. In the material that maternity clinics hand out, the equivalent vegan recommendation for first solid proteins are tofu and red lentils. The linked full set of recommendations also covers more specifics for infants and toddlers: https://www.julkari.fi/handle/10024/137770
Basically the only exception is infant formula, unless the child has a diagnosed milk allergy. There's also a general recommendation against restricted, e.g. macrobiotic and raw diets.
> There's a difference between surviving and thriving.
And you have given no proof that a child can't thrive on a vegan diet. Surely it's not something a public health authority recommends, because people generally aren't vegan.
I can't find any study supporting that a vegan diet for infants and children can't be as healthy as a non-vegan diet. There are always outliers, but you also have children on non-vegan diets that are missing vitamins and nutrients.
That very same link states that "a carefully composed vegan diet" can be beneficial. Thats my point -- with a vegan diet you have to be much more conscientious about nutrition. Many people are not. With your average healthy omnivorous diet, you rarely have any significant nutrient deficiencies that you have to worry about. Said diet ends up being simpler to implement in practice. That's what I mean by careful management; A healthy vegan diet for children is not impossible, but it takes more effort.
You say "much more", but the models of healthy eating don't really differ that much in practice. Both prescribe a balanced plate with carbs, proteins, and "other" vegetables. The omnivore model calls for half the plate being vegetables, while the vegan plate is divided into equal thirds.
That of course being the rule of thumb, and obviously people don't necessarily build every meal to exactly that pattern. A pizza night every now and then is okay too.
> rarely have any significant nutrient deficiencies
People in the Nordics are usually already supplementing at least vitamin D due to lack of sunlight, and often iodine due to a lack of it in the soil. So in this context, switching to a combined vegan supplement that includes those as well as B12 is a relatively small change.
My ex had the same issue while on a vegan diet - and she was an adult. Random dizzy spells and faintness to the point of almost passing out.
It boggles my mind anyone would ascribe to a diet that literally requires vitamin supplements through artificial means in order to be complete. And those are just the obvious deficiencies.
Vitamin B12 is made by bacteria, it's in all dirt, and untreated water. You absorb it through your skin. It's pretty easy to see how it wasn't long ago that we would be having an abundance of vitamin b12 from everywhere.
Cows don't make it, they eat it in soil. Which, actually, because most of them are factory farmed, they are fed the supplement. Nothing natural about that; in fact, you're just skipping the middle-man and cruetly.
"But I only eat grass-grazed happy cows!" Good for you! Now how about a solution that can work for everyone.
You want to know what the real next pandemic is. It's going to come from the unbelievable abuse of antibiotics the meat industry is responsible for. Medicine will be set back a century.
> It boggles my mind anyone would ascribe to a diet that literally requires vitamin supplements through artificial means in order to be complete.
I used to think that, but at some point I thought: what's the big deal? If you're still eating healthy, still eating tasty food, and you just also consume a pill or two every day, is that really so bad, or does it just feel "wrong"?
> It boggles my mind anyone would ascribe to a diet that literally requires vitamin supplements through artificial means in order to be complete.
Most non vegans also get their B12 through supplementation. It just is fed to animals directly or indirectly as cobalt supplement.
> Most forages and feedstuffs fed to dairy and beef animals do not contain adequate quantities of cobalt to support the rumen and animal requirements. Consequently, supplemental cobalt must be added to beef and dairy rations. [1]
There's a mosque around the corner where I live. I see old people go in and out, hardly any teenagers. Just like in the church to which my parents-in-law once brought us.
How many of those hasidic jews' 4.1 children keep the faith, and how many get a career instead? 0.5, 1.5, 2.5, 3.5? If it's 3.5 I'll have to ask why they succeed so well.
"Faith" is a big word, but for many/most haredi people "community" is the more operative term. Leaving a sect means becoming an outsider. All their family and friend relationships are insider-based. Regardless of the severity of luteral shunning practices, the nature or haredi lifestyle makes these aspects severe regardless. There's a lot of variance between communities though.
In any case, people do leave. Often, it's relatively early in life. This is why haredi communities are so leery of military service, college lifestyles and such.
People also join. A lot of Chabad adjacent communities are largely converts and 2nd generation members.
I would also emphasize that lifestyle, community, belonging, mission and such tend to play as big a role as belief in convincing converts.
Judaism doesn't always emphasize belief in its definition of "faith." At least, far less than Christianity and Islam. This a philosophical tradition going way back. Faithfulness and even spirituality are often seen as concerning practice (ritual, but also moral) moreso than concerning faith.
Belief follows practice, and if it doesn't... at least you have practice. The Christian Brothers pinched this line from an old rabbi.
Faith isn't quite the right word for what I mean, but community isn't either. The particular set of opinions or practices that have the practical effect of keeping the parents (and some grown-up children) separated from the wider society. (The concrete practical effect mentioned upthread was being vaccinated.)
They succeed in part by insulating their children from Western culture (no TV, no Internet, little interaction with outsiders), and by giving them very little in terms of secular education, so that getting a career is not really an option for most.
Unfortunately, for the ultra orthodox, yes. The parliamentary system is a majority coalition, and more often than not, the ultra orthodox parties are the kingmakers, so they get a lot more influence than one would expect.
Specifically, they are exempt from the standard Israeli STEM + foreign language curriculum (which is quite comprehensive - to graduate highschool, you need passing grades in standardized tests that includes -- among other things -- English, Math, at least one of biology/physics/chemistry, literature, history, Hebrew, sometimes bible studies -- depends on the government at the time). You have to have 20 credits among these - at least 3 in English, at least 3 in Math, and there are more requirements).
About 10 years ago, there was a government they were not part of, and this exemption was removed ; but the following cycle, they were kingmakers again and it got reinstated.
Edit: Added some details about the Israeli curriculum.
Do enough medicine and you'll see just how wrong this is. Every medical issue leaves damage on your body. Mostly very small. Even fractures, the example often given, yes, a broken bone grows back stronger ... and less flexible, more brittle and heavier, more calcified, with less blood going through it a fact it will not cease to remind you off once you turn 55 or so.
Not to be misunderstood, that Nietzsche quote was a sarcastic comment on some strange lines of thought one can find in the anti-vaccination fringes.
Another one is 'God wills it' and another one is, it's 'natural' or 'pure'.
As an extreme, you can find that strange mix of sentimental almost pseudo-religious nature enthusiasm, magical thinking and barbarism in National Socialism.
They were obsessed with the healthy Aryan body, albeit its rulers themselves for the most part not exactly the most outstanding specimens.
Metaphors of health, disease, and parasitism in the racial corpus permeate the whole ideology like metastasized cancer.
Of course, the Reich just needed healthy soldiers, ruthlessly against the weak amongst themselves and the enemy.
I'm not sure that COVID anti-vax is a good example of Darwinism. Out of the 950K deaths from COVID in the US, only 6K are under 30 years old - hence less likely to have reproduced.
I find it disheartening so many people are willing to gloat over fellow humans' deaths, regardless of the reason, some notion of "karma", "Darwinism", etc.
Sympathy for their families. Acknowledgment you don’t know all the circumstances in their life, and we all have varying levels of susceptibility to disinformation.
According to the Israeli ministry of health the kid got infected with the virus from the vaccination that includes a living weak virus, a vaccine that is not given in many countries and have been not given in Israel for almost 20 years.
The decision to give the weakened virus was based on live viruses found in the sewage of Bedouin community in Rahat.
Also the ultra orthodox Jews in Jerusalem are pro-vaccine and the number of the anti-vax people among them is much lower than the anti-vax secular people in Israel.
This is what you want to believe. If you inform yourself more, which is now possible more then ever in history, then you find out, that this is just huge business with fear. I recommend book from Gerhard Buchwald - "Vaccination - A Business Based on Fear" (1994) if your are open to new research.
Remember... Scared and uninformed people are easy to be manipulated.
It is extremely concerning that this is most likely a mainstream position.
Mandatory medical procedure for the common good is a slipperly slope… and it has been made into a mainstream position with pharma marketing and PR working with politicians and “news” agencies for their short-term profits.
This could end up in someone coming to power and making high doses of copper cyanide mandatory to everyone who is pro-mandates, for the common good of course. Be careful what you wish for.
Superstition and idiocy being more important than the common good is a slippery slope... what if someone decides that putting out fires is against the will of their God?
That's a pretty quickly self-limiting population. As is the Antivax community, though the flareups of forgotten diseases will continue for a few more cycles before this group dies out naturally - So long as we don't fan the flames by actually persecuting them. More than a few will die of disease, most will learn better from seeing the results of their actions.
A significant portion of that population will develop natural immunity (mostly by natural selection) and will be the one to survive when at some point centralized supply chain is exausted out of resources and all the viruses that they had vaccines for come back with a bang.
you are being vaccinated thousands times a day by countless parasites, fungi and bacteria, yet when it's safely designed by tens of thousands of smartest people in the world it becomes... medical procedure..?
Then it's also not fine for you to leave your house because even if you are vaccinated you can still spread disease. With modern technology, there's no need to leave the home for anything but work and some essentials. So if you have this technological-integrationist view on vaccines then you might as well self-ban from any sort of outside recreation or public gatherings since you would be putting others at risk.
Between the two extremes of not getting vaccinated and self-isolating forever on the off chance you might have a virus is something called reasonable precaution. Getting vaccinated for something like Polio is just such a thing.
Who gets to draw that line? If one has the choice to self-isolate, and they are motivated by social obligation, then they should do so even if they are vaccinated because the morality of the issue doesn't scale with the severity of the virus. To knowingly risk giving others a disease for the sake of frivolity, even when the chances are relatively low, would nevertheless be an immoral act.
This is of course something I don't actually believe. Vaccines should be a personal choice because presumably they are effective enough that the argument for one's responsibility towards other people's health is greatly diminished to a point where we can decide what's a reasonable compromise. I more or less agree with what you're saying in actuality.
Well, the thing about reasonable precautions is that there's a fairly bright-line test: reasoned arguments behind those precautions. As for who should draw that line, I'd say that subject experts should have a very loud voice in the conversation. In this case, that would mean epidemiologists.
It's fine for vaccines to be a personal choice, but if epidemiologists think that an unvaccinated person is an undue risk to the general public, it's reasonable to limit that person's access to the public.
> Vaccines should be a personal choice because presumably they are effective enough that the argument for one's responsibility towards other people's health is greatly diminished to a point where we can decide what's a reasonable compromise.
Emphasis mine. Your presumption does not hold for all vaccines. Different vaccines and different strains of viruses have varying degrees of effectiveness. Epidemiologists take a data-driven approach to that decision where you're just making an assumption. Reasoned arguments must be backed by data, not just assumptions.
An unmentioned subcategory is words that that sound or look like taboo words, but are actually unrelated: "niggardly", "Gaylord", "fag" as in cigarette (from "fag end", unrelated to "faggot"), etc.
Yes, but this appears to be the origin of the pejorative: bundle of sticks -> an old woman collecting sticks -> a man who acts like an old woman -> homosexual.
Bingo. Unfortunately NATO made it very clear to everyone over the past eight years that it's not going to spill blood over Ukraine.
... But now that the opportunity to trap Putin in a quagmire has presented itself, it does seem to be ready to flood the region with weapons. Had it done so at any point in the preceding eight years, war might well have been avoided.
Which leads me to think that avoiding war was never the goal.
I think it's a bit of a catch-22: given one of Putin's stated aims is to demilitarise Ukraine and remove Western weapons, NATO arming Ukraine earlier would have caused Russia to invade earlier.
Invasions take a lot of preparation. You can't just tell your army to attack some country - they need to plan exactly how they will do it, and practice.
The turnaround time on this sort of thing does not favor the aggressor.
Whenever I join a new team and need to inhale a new architecture or complex process, I take a stab at documenting what currently exists, and then share my notes with the team. Corrections immediately pour in, and this "wrong answer" inevitably produces a much better end result than asking any single person to tell me the "right answer".
The preface was written at an odd moment in time when the UK and the Soviet Union were allied, for the simple reason that in times of war the enemy of my enemy (Hitler's Germany) is my friend. Two short years later the Cold War began and pointed criticism of Russia became much more palatable.
Meanwhile, it's 2022, and we're firing orchestra conductors because they're Russian and not denouncing Putin sufficiently vigorously.
You're phrasing it as if 'we're firing any orchestra conductors' but anyone with half a brain is able to figure out who that guy is and what are his past political involvements:
Yes, he appeared for a TV ad for Putin in 2012. Why is this suddenly a firing offence in 2022? Does he bear personal responsibility for what Putin's doing today?
Denouncing McCarthyism in 1950, Truman said, "In a free country, we punish men for the crimes they commit, but never for the opinions they have."
This is an extraordinarily disingenuous summarisation of that link.
A more accurate summary - he has publicly supported Putin on every single major policy. He supported annexing South Ossetia (2008), criticised Pussy Riot (2012), defending Putin’s anti gay bill (2013), annexing Crimea (2014).
Just to drive the point home, here’s what he had to say about the anti-gay legislation - “In Russia we do everything we can to protect children from paedophiles. This law is not about homosexuality, it targets paedophilia.” This is a man so abhorrent that he was equating LGBT with paedophilia.
And you summarised that as “oh he just did an ad, what’s wrong with that”.
Even now he could save his job by putting out some platitude like “I support a peaceful resolution to the conflict” but he won’t because he supports whatever Putin does.
Let me be clear - it is ok for me and others to not want to associate with such a person. It is ok if all of us prefer not to go to a performance by him. If the production companies think they’ll find it impossible to fill seats because too many people will stay away, then it is ok for them to pick someone else.
This isn’t censorship, it’s just people not associating with those who support unjustified wars.
> McCarthyism
I don’t know why it’s necessary to explain this to an adult in 2022 but McCarthyism is explicitly about persecution by the government. Not ordinary citizens preferring not to associate with you. The First Amendment prevents the government from making laws which abridge the freedom of speech, it doesn’t force private citizens to be your friends and supporters after you say anything.
Sure, the orchestra can fire or not fire the guy, and they can also do so on the basis of whether they think this will fill seats. What really rubs me the wrong way here is the performative "you're with us or you're against us" demand for a written denouncement: AFAICT he has not said a peep either way about the Ukraine invasion, he is just being required to publicly renounce his past beliefs to keep his job.
For what it's worth, you're also doing some pretty selective reading of the link: he's Ossetian himself, claims he never actually signed the Crimea annexation statement, and the Pussy Riot/LGBT stuff is really an irrelevant tangent here.
Finally, no, McCarthyism was not (just) about government persecution, things like the MPAA blacklist on "Communist" actors and directors were private initiatives, and artists bore much of the brunt of that particular witchhunt.
The MPAA blacklist was a direct consequence of the House Unamerican Activities Committee investigations into Hollywood. It wouldn’t exist but for government intervention. The blacklist itself did not violate the first Amendment, but the actions of HUAC did.
Look, you’re hell bent on claiming mUh CaNcEl cUlTuRe for this poor conductor. Apparently he never supported any violence and doesn’t condone the current invasion either. Ok, let him just say that. Until then, I and other like minded individuals want nothing to do with with him. If you feel strongly about it, write to the various orchestras and tell them how you and your many freedom loving friends will fill the seats.
The Economist is old school liberal: let companies do what they want (US "right-wing"), let people do what they want (US "left-wing"), but unlike US libertarians, also have some regulation and support in place to prevent the worst abuses.
ACOUP has a great collection on ironworking and the generally insane amount of labor and fuel that went into premodern iron production, including nails:
Brilliant. I'll need to make a point of pronouncing "outrage" to rhyme with "garage" from now on. "It is an oot-RAAZH!"