Splicetoday
Recent Feed Comments
  • Manchester by the Sea reminded me a lot of his previous film, Margaret, which I saw. Lonergan has honed his fly-on-the-wall aesthetic for years now, and I think Manchester by the Sea is probably his greatest synthesis of content and form, both on screen and on the stage.

    Responses to this comment
  • I think I have several years on you, Enderby, but you're certainly right about college campuses. Nearly half the students smoked in classrooms, professors too. And in the library! Plus, almost every house had several ashtrays, whether the owners smoked or not. Not sure I buy your airplane claim about germs.

    Responses to this comment
  • There isn't much the left won't racialize. I disagree with the headline's use of "can't". I think the left very well can. They know exactly what's going on and they don't have a problem with it. They think they'll come out on top of whatever version of the Revolution comes down the pike. Meantime, their muscle is the radical Muslims.

    Responses to this comment
  • In the Olden Days, say around time your father and I started college, students and professors smoked in the classroom. Hell, when I was in secondary school the teachers smoked in the classroom. (Only seniors could smoke on campus, though, and not in class. One of those 'senior privileges.') The notion that cigarette smoke polluted indoor spaces is way oversold. You could smell it initially, sure, but it went away, like a fart. Smoking on airlines was a boon to travelers because it meant the air had to be recycled and purified. When they banned smoking on airplanes, germs ran wild and people caught the flu every second or third time they flew. Just a little historical balance here.

    Responses to this comment
  • I would buy that, Texan, but the articles critiquing Drake's misogyny all come from music blogs, which cover hip-hop in general. Drake may be more mainstream, but someone like Future is just as visible to a Pitchfork or Spin critic. And the middle aged white woman thing I'm referencing is this: https://noisey.vice.com/en_us/article/extremely-concerned-white-woman-recites-vince-stapless-norf-norf-through-tears. This woman heard Vince Staples's song "Norf Norf" on the radio while bringing her kids to school and subsequently recorded a Youtube video reading the lyrics and crying hysterically. He's not a mainstream rapper, nor was this a big single.

    Responses to this comment
  • Booker, Drake is an easier target because he is more mainstream and therefore more readily heard by "middle-aged white women" than most "hip-hop" artists. He even made an appearance at the Disney Music Awards. That simple. I get your point but really, how many middle-aged white women are listening to a Young Thug disc when picking up their kid at school? Noah, misogyny sucks. When you make it a race issue, you distort and distract from the actual issue.

    Responses to this comment
  • Bob Dylan had a number of misogynist put down songs. and there country music has a long tradition of murder ballads about killing women. Miosgyny is hardly restricted to hip hop. And is it really worse to sing about violence than to actually commit it?// Hip hop is absolutely misogynist (in part), as are most other genres of popular music. We live in a misogynist society.There's nothing wrong with criticizing that misogyny when it comes up—but it's also worth thinking about why people find misogyny a lot easier to critique/attack when black men are the perpetrators.

    Responses to this comment
  • Exactly. How can people divorce misogyny from rap music when rappers go ahead and do something like that? What about Chris Brown, and rappers defending him, like Kanye. Or tacitly defending him by putting him on their song. What the hell!! Is there not something vile about hearing a man say "bitches ain't shit but hoes and tricks" and then punching a woman? Bob dylan beat his wife, and James brown did the same, but at least they didn't SING about it. Led Zeppelin did some bad stuff (allegedly) but they never sung about the shark incident.

    Responses to this comment
  • Although I agree in general with this piece and always enjoy your writing Nicky, I think a little more research on the harms of Nicotine would be advisable. You're right that an ingestion method that minimizes additives and tar would be helpful in reducing cancer risk, however, the damage that Nicotine can do to ones heart and arteries should not be minimized.

    Responses to this comment
  • I's say Dr. Dre's qualifications as a misogynist are more related to the women he punched in the face over the years than any of his musical releases.

    Responses to this comment
  • This is bunk and just another excuse to avoid labeling hip hop what it is: MISOGYNISTIC. YOU CAN'T HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO. Bloggers like booker Smith himself are just quoting fancy, smart-sounding feminists in order to work around their self-made politically correct catch22: How do I praise a misogynist while still being woke? Because if you criticize any of these rappers for expressing violence towards women, according to booker Smith, then you're actually being racist. Huh. Funny how that works. This is the writer: "People are calling Drake a misogynist. They're right. They shouldn't criticize him. We shouldn't criticize any rapper ever." Huh. Weird. Well done.

    Responses to this comment
  • Well done.

    Responses to this comment
Recent Splice Original Comments
  • hah - just clicked on his twitter handle to get bigger picture of berlatsky's persona / POV, but it would appear that we are not the only ones to take issue with his dyscourse: . "This account has been suspended"

    Responses to this comment
  • for me the most moribund aspect is the sheer amount of cognitive dissonance it takes to not only produce, but then proudly publish such pernicious poppycock - i'd suggest that the author is effectively asking to have his ass handed to him by *anybody* with an unclouded capacity for critical thinking, but from his trite text i think i already know which erroneous evasive manoeuvre that would most likely manifest

    Responses to this comment
  • Noah. Reading comprehension. It's good, no matter what your parents told you. Who's doing the conspiracy thing here, anyway? You can't have a conspiracy if everybody knows you're lying, so I'd suggest you give up trying. You must have a hobby or something.

    Responses to this comment
  • The choice of citing C.J. Wereleman here is indicative of the quality of this piece. AlterNet has removed every single one of his artices from its website, due to the fact that he's a charlatan. If you're going to offer your hot take on real old news, maybe C. J.'s name isn't the right one to drop.http://thedailybanter.com/2014/10/c-j-werlemans-pitiful-dishonesty-goes-beyond-plagiarism-allegations/

    Responses to this comment
  • So, Richard believes in racist conspiracy theories. No one is surprised.

    Responses to this comment
  • 12 years after Harris writes it, we get the bulletin that he's an anti-Semite. Ho hum. Then make the link to Islamophobia, as if a Holocaust for Muslims would result from criticism of their religion. Sure thing.

    Responses to this comment
  • perhaps 'boilerplate butthurt' is the one wound that time dont heal so good - especially when one keeps scratching away at the scab

  • This is really current because a crackpot plagiarist posts something that came out in 2004.

    Responses to this comment
  • Noah. A couple of things you know but hope the rest of us don't. The judge you refer to was problematic from Trump's point of view due to his association with La Raza and other radical groups. While it's true that only a person of Mexican descent is likely to be so affiliated, that wasn't the issue. various reports that, in some places, 2+% of voters were non-citizens. If it only takes, say 3.5% to swing an election, the concern is justified. As I have said before, I know you know this stuff. You keep forgetting that everybody else does, too.

    Responses to this comment
  • i see a decent amount of projection in that last paragraph, and definitely delivered with a solid dose of the sneer promised by the sub head above what i don’t see anywhere, however, in the harris excerpt is the word 'hate', nor do i find his use of the phrase 'sectarian fire' particularly euphemistic, as it fits firmly within the context of his dispassionately specific discourse also - and as a lifelong etymologist i know i'm not splitting hairs here - intolerance is not the same thing as hate, nor even considered a tenuous synonym - i can quite easily shift from ‘sneer’ to two strong synonyms for hate though, and without really having to reach either: sneer >> contempt >> despise “from Latin contemptus a despising” ..so if you wanna cast aspersions on somebody that are predominantly based on a decontextualising cherry picking of their choice of words, i strongly suggest that you “check yourself before you wreck yourself”, as they say my final piece of feedback happens to regard your last line, which in my humble opinion displays either a lack of comprehension of harris’ text, or a wilful misrepresentation that can only be counterproductive: “Throughout history, and still today, there’s no religious qualification for hating Jews.” when it is quite clear from harris’ cogent argument that he was addressing the much more amorphous concept of identity – an idea that is often informed by the influence of religion – yet not entirely defined by it some identities cleave closer to religion than others though, and the venn diagram for Jewish racial identity and Judaism appears to overlap so much it all but creates a full eclipse subsequently, it is impossible to discuss historical Jewish identity in the absence of Judaism, which irrefutably is not the fault of harris, nor automatically anti semitic surely you can see that such disingenuous discourse does nobody any favours, and could even be interpreted as actually assisting in reinforcing harris’ point

    Responses to this comment
  • I clocked "Crunchy Con" Rod as soon as he announced he'd become some sort of Orthodox. Now, there's only reason to become Orthodox, and that's that you were basically nothing, and see that the Orthodox church(es) have a verifiable authenticity. There are other selling points, of course, such as the fact that since Orthodoxy is schismatic, you can pretend to be protestant (as Anglicans do) when that's convenient. But there's something fishy about someone who was loudly Catholic, like Dreher, and joins up with one of the Orthodox sects, and makes a public performance of it. This is not something that goes to the heart of Belief, it's for show. It's about branding and ritual. He could have affiliated himself with one of those Eastern Rite churches if it were simply a case of being offended by the Novus Ordo hoohah; but then he couldn't call himself a non-Catholic and be publicly eccentric. This adherence is wafer-thin, and will soon be doffed for something else: Copticism, perhaps, or even Sedevacantism. Then, five or ten years down the road, he'll change again. To Rod Dreher, it's all granola.

    Responses to this comment
  • Excellent, Alan. "Information wants to be free." You put something on the internet, it's essentially public. If you have privacy concerns, don't put it out there. My only quibble is with your earlier doubts about Assange. He didn't talk about your ethnic crime syndicate for the same reason he didn't walk around with an unpinned grenade.

    Responses to this comment
Recent Multimedia Comments