anat. israeli-american living in socal. phd student. lives on coffee.
Background Illustrations provided by: http://edison.rutgers.edu/
Reblogged from beemill  697 notes

In the Eighties, when I was in college in 1988. That was almost the end of the military dictatorship. I was a student protester. I was part of a lot of demonstrations against the government and I would have to run away from riot police. In one particular instance, I ran away and opened a random door and ended up in a very classy, high-end hotel. I found myself in this lobby where there was piano music and just two seconds ago they were shooting tear gas at me. There I was listening to Mozart and guests were dressed up in nice clothes drinking coffee as if nothing was going on. I was just in a daze, thinking ‘where am I’? That feeling is definitely a part of the sushi bar scene. By Bong Joon-ho (x)

themaefive:

axonsandsynapses:

yuletidekarkat:

dannygayhealani:

creatingaquietmind:

the speech impediment of the 21st century (by Marc Johns)

I’ll fuck you up buddy this is not a speech impediment it’s linguistic evolution!! the existence of the phrase “Aisha was like” allows the speaker to convey whatever Aisha said without making the listener assume they’re quoting Aisha directly while still maintaining the FEELING of what Aisha said.
ie, Aisha said she didn’t want to go out with me VERSUS Aisha was like, “I’d rather kiss a Wookie”.
the addition of “XYZ was like” lets the speaker be more expressive and efficient and it is a totally valid method of communicating information!!

With the way language has evolved, this is one of the few ways I can even think of to express in casual conversation what someone said. 
"So I said to Aisha," is certainly used, but if you remove the "so," which implies casual tone ("and" can be used in the same way), you get
"I said to Aisha," which is really formal in most English dialects/variations. I don’t know about all, but in New England dialects, you sound like you’re reading aloud from a novel.
"I told Aisha," is really only used when you continue to describe, not tell, what you told her. Ex: "I told Aisha that James was too punk for her" works while, "I told Aisha, ‘James is too punk for you’" crosses the line back into formalness of the "I said."
Things like “I asked” or “I answered [with]” are similar levels of casual and efficient to the “So, I said [or say, as many conversations about the past take place in present tense anyway, as if the speaker is giving a play-by-play in the moment]” but are specific to only certain situations. 
"I was like, 'Marc Johns, what is your obsession with restoring archaic speech patterns and interfering with the natural progression of English from complex to efficient?'" envelopes all of these easily and is accessible and crisp, and allows for more variations on inflection than the others.
Of course, James is probably like, “I already fucking said that.” But eh, I tried adding on.

#linguistics #a.k.a. how I learned to stop worrying and love the evolution of the English language without being a discriminatory elitist jerk (via crystalandrock)

This a million times

themaefive:

axonsandsynapses:

yuletidekarkat:

dannygayhealani:

creatingaquietmind:

the speech impediment of the 21st century (by Marc Johns)

I’ll fuck you up buddy this is not a speech impediment it’s linguistic evolution!! the existence of the phrase “Aisha was like” allows the speaker to convey whatever Aisha said without making the listener assume they’re quoting Aisha directly while still maintaining the FEELING of what Aisha said.

ie, Aisha said she didn’t want to go out with me VERSUS Aisha was like, “I’d rather kiss a Wookie”.

the addition of “XYZ was like” lets the speaker be more expressive and efficient and it is a totally valid method of communicating information!!

With the way language has evolved, this is one of the few ways I can even think of to express in casual conversation what someone said. 

"So I said to Aisha," is certainly used, but if you remove the "so," which implies casual tone ("and" can be used in the same way), you get

"I said to Aisha," which is really formal in most English dialects/variations. I don’t know about all, but in New England dialects, you sound like you’re reading aloud from a novel.

"I told Aisha," is really only used when you continue to describe, not tell, what you told her. Ex: "I told Aisha that James was too punk for her" works while, "I told Aisha, ‘James is too punk for you’" crosses the line back into formalness of the "I said."

Things like “I asked” or “I answered [with]” are similar levels of casual and efficient to the “So, I said [or say, as many conversations about the past take place in present tense anyway, as if the speaker is giving a play-by-play in the moment]” but are specific to only certain situations. 

"I was like, 'Marc Johns, what is your obsession with restoring archaic speech patterns and interfering with the natural progression of English from complex to efficient?'" envelopes all of these easily and is accessible and crisp, and allows for more variations on inflection than the others.

Of course, James is probably like, “I already fucking said that.” But eh, I tried adding on.

  (via crystalandrock)

This a million times

postracialcomments:

fuckyeahmarxismleninism:

ABC News tells viewers that scenes of destruction in Gaza are in Israel
More than fifty Palestinians have been killed and another 450 wounded since Monday in Israel’s ongoing assault on the besieged Gaza Strip, dubbed “Operation Protective Edge” by the Israeli army. 
As usual, mainstream media outlets are straining to paint Israel as the victim, defending its people against irrational Palestinian rocket fire.
There is no equating the killing and maiming of dozens of innocent Palestinians with scared Israelis seeking shelter from crude rockets that rarely cause damage. But that hasn’t stopped media outlets from trying, and in some cases, outright lying, to distort the violence. 
In one stark example, ABC News’ Diane Sawyer misidentifies scenes of the aftermath of Israeli missile strikes in Gaza as destruction caused by Palestinian rocket fire.
As Sawyer segues into the segment, she says, “We take you overseas now to the rockets raining down on Israel today as Israel tried to shoot them out of the sky.” Next to her is video footage not of Israelis or even Israel, but of Israeli airstrikes on Gaza.
Sawyer then incorrectly describes an image of a Palestinian family gathering belongings in the smoking debris of a missile-hit home in Gaza as “an Israeli family trying to salvage what they can.” 
Sawyer then describes an image of a Palestinian woman surrounded by destroyed homes as “one woman standing speechless among the ruins,” with the implication that she is Israeli. 
Sawyer’s bald misreporting reflects either a deliberate lie by ABC News or willful ignorance so severe that Palestinian death and misery is invisible even when it’s staring ABC producers right in the face.
The segment in its entirety can be seen here. 

Lord

postracialcomments:

fuckyeahmarxismleninism:

ABC News tells viewers that scenes of destruction in Gaza are in Israel

More than fifty Palestinians have been killed and another 450 wounded since Monday in Israel’s ongoing assault on the besieged Gaza Strip, dubbed “Operation Protective Edge” by the Israeli army. 

As usual, mainstream media outlets are straining to paint Israel as the victim, defending its people against irrational Palestinian rocket fire.

There is no equating the killing and maiming of dozens of innocent Palestinians with scared Israelis seeking shelter from crude rockets that rarely cause damage. But that hasn’t stopped media outlets from trying, and in some cases, outright lying, to distort the violence. 

In one stark example, ABC News’ Diane Sawyer misidentifies scenes of the aftermath of Israeli missile strikes in Gaza as destruction caused by Palestinian rocket fire.

As Sawyer segues into the segment, she says, “We take you overseas now to the rockets raining down on Israel today as Israel tried to shoot them out of the sky.” Next to her is video footage not of Israelis or even Israel, but of Israeli airstrikes on Gaza.

Sawyer then incorrectly describes an image of a Palestinian family gathering belongings in the smoking debris of a missile-hit home in Gaza as “an Israeli family trying to salvage what they can.” 

Sawyer then describes an image of a Palestinian woman surrounded by destroyed homes as “one woman standing speechless among the ruins,” with the implication that she is Israeli. 

Sawyer’s bald misreporting reflects either a deliberate lie by ABC News or willful ignorance so severe that Palestinian death and misery is invisible even when it’s staring ABC producers right in the face.

The segment in its entirety can be seen here

Lord