you lost the game

So are

colostomy bags

Diapers

insulin pumps

Oxygen systems

rollators

hearing aids

compression garments

prosthetics

FREEDOM AIDS

- service animals

- noise cancelling headphones/ear defenders

- wheelchair attachments

- fidgets

IT’S DISABILITY PRIDE MONTH YALL

The complaints I’m seeing for The Odyssey are ridiculous.

The race of actors. Some of you are complaining because of black people in Ancient Greece. Did NONE of you watch Hercules: The Legendary Journeys or Xena: Warrior Princess gowing up? Tony Todd was captain of what was essentially the flying dutchman. And Helen of Troy was black. No one complained in the 90s. Most of the actors in Xena and Hercules were from New Zealand. Also saying “Homer wouldn’t approve of how she looks.” It’s widely believed that Homer was BLIND!

Another complaint is the use of casual, modern, American-style English. Again, did none of you grow up with Xena or Hercules? Those shows were improbably anachronistic.

There are people complaining about the film being based on the Emily Wilson translation because they call it “Woke.” Do explain why and how it’s woke. Scholars have said that her translation is the most accurate to the Greek to date, for surpassing the nineteenth century translations we grew up with and pretended slavery didn’t exist in Greece.

Two which translation pretended slavery didn't exist lol? Because Wilson said so? Because the translations I have seen (even if I am Greek so I am not really that much into English translations as English spoken people) have mentioned slavery in many parts of the Odyssey (where the text actually says that) for instance Telemachus speaking on "slaves his father won for him" among others. Yes no translation is perfect and of course there are questionable choices in many of them but anyone with half knowledge sees how inaccurate Wilson is or deliberately twisting the meanings of it so no she is not the most accurate to greek to this day lol. Far from it. And yes I read the original and yes people in Greece are actually still being taught the homeric poems like in middle school.

Also who told you that we didn't make fun of Xena or Hercules series when they were airing? Have you traveled about Greece people who watched the series on their TV only to make fun on the bizarre parts of them? Who told you that we didn't laugh our asses off at many of those or even at other cases of Hollywood before or after them? Who told you that we are not furious by every single twist of our culture including Nolan's movie but not only that?

I believe you also see my peeve too. The criticism I see on a vast number of posts is actually perfectly valid. Do I still see some ridiculous takes among them? Absolutely. The same way that I see ridiculous claims of those who support it.

Again I am sorry but as I said I have seen some of the texts myself. I do not need any professor to point that out to me neither to my native tongue nor to English which might not be my native tongue but I gained certain level of fluency in it. I have yet to see a translation that denies that slavery existed in Greece or in Homer my friend. What I do see though is not an exclusive focus to it which up to one point is correct. The text of Homer does not spend its entirety to spell it out to us because it was simply there. To get out of one's way to focus on that in particular as noble as it is, is not the point of Homer. Homer presented it as something natural. Eumaeus, Philoetius, Melantho, Dolius etc we all know that they are slaves. Homer knows it. He mentions it but doesn't spend pages after pages to talk about that. And we do have some very good mentions on Dolius or Eumaeus on their background stories anyways and as I said I have seen other translators mention that. Wilson did not suddenly discover the wheel.

The term "maid" is a valid translation as a word for simply "woman of servitude". He doesn't deny slavery existing. He refers to the women as "women". Also the word "attendant" also exists in the text (for example the word ἀμφίπολος that Telemachus uses in rhapsody 1 actually is translated as "handmaiden" or "attendant" and not as slave) Feagles though is also not the most direct translation either. He is not sold for complete accuracy either. And yet he is more accurate to the text's spirit on many ways.

"nurse" is also a term used (μαια) in the actual text. So yet again it is another word used. Plus for Euryclea for example we already know she is a slave because the text itself tells us she is (bought by Laertes) which is translated by texts

I am not familiar with Pope to fully comment on his translation but the text of Homer is inherently positive in many parts. Of course there are the raw moments in it but the texts themselves are also grandiose in many portions of it.

With this logic Wilson has also twisted way too many things to count such as adding random words to make people believe her characterizations of Odysseus (for example the completely unbased addition of "lord of lies" in 9th rhapsody when she had already translated πολυμιτις to "wily") random translations that are inaccurate on plants and nature (see the plants at Calypso's isle) total omitting of several passages or twisting their meaning (Athena in the original says to Odysseus "you never stop your deceitful stories not even when a god stands before you" but she translates as "men and gods would have trouble with you" or something along the lines ) etc. We have others who are better at certain passages and others that are worse but do not think that alternative words pop out of nowhere

"Attendant" "woman" "maid" "nurse" etc actually appear at the original text as well. With your logic then Wilson is a woman that miacharizes any character she dislikes and constantly tries to persuade you that all the other "men translators" just had no other goal in their lives but misguide you which simply is not true. As I said there is no perfect translation but is far from what Wilson makes it seem like in her interviews. In fact on occasions she got critisized for her choices she referenced other "men translators" by saying "look what this person did in that passage" which is the very least indicative that no the translations of the past are not the monstrosities Wilson makes them sound like

And as I said I do read the original terms too so I compare then to those.

No offense but I am talking about us as children. Even 10 year Olds in Greece could see the twists of Greek culture back then and no offense from your comment right now I would encourage you to use these dictionaries a bit more carefully. It is great that you have them and good for you that you attempt to search more critically but again it is not true at least not to the totality of the writers and certainly that doesn't make Wilson some kind of illuminator to the stories of slavery just because she claims so.

As I said there are many weaknesses to translations I see then every day But Wilson is not better than any of them. Arguably it is worse than several. And that is an objective fact on several passages. Some are accurate for sure just it happens for many other translators in the past but several are objectively not only inaccurate but sometimes actually deliberately altered either to fit her ideas or to fit her metric system that is fit for English language but not homeric greek

Now whether someone likes her speech or finds it refreshing for light reading etc that is great the same way that someone might enjoy on Feagles or Fitzgerald. That doesn't mean that we shall not point out the weaknesses to it and Wilson has a lot. Some of them are not even weaknesses they are actually deliberate and her clear choices. Also as a Greek her intros make me just sad at how much of the Greek culture we do not seem to convey there.

I think mine is so ugly tbh the two yellows do not go together 😔

Make yours!

oh look, it's got two of my favorite colors (blue, ourple), hell yeah.

if you are non-american then it can be dangerous to hold beliefs about your rights that are only applicable in the US.

i am australian and i have seen young australians have completely us-american perceptions on the rights they hold (or do not hold) in regards to protest, police officers, self-defense, medical care, higher education, debt, and legal proceedings. i am not talking about "boooo americans" i am talking about the genuine danger it might present to have us-centric assumptions in high-stakes situations

“Anti-Jedi” fans try to excuse and legitimize their misinterpretation of the Jedi teaching by arguing, "attachment" has a very specific meaning in Buddhism, so once non-attachment is “taken out of its Buddhist context,” for the average English-speaking Star Wars fan, it can only be interpreted as “non-love.” By contrast, many “Pro-Jedi” fans have a tendency to simply stop at “respecting the Buddhist inspiration” of Lucas’ Jedi doctrine, and insist, what it really means is clinginess and obsession (implying, Anakin was like Joe Goldberg from You.)

Both kinds of fans are mistaken. When they hear that in Buddhist philosophy non-attachment does not mean the absence of love or connection, rather, it connotes clinging, grasping and the inability to let go, they're quick to conclude that the kind of attachment the Buddha warns against has nothing to do with their “normal attachments” or “normal love.”

This is not so.

Buddhist teachings highlight a simple fact of life we all know at some level but we don’t wish to face with: whatever we think we have, we can never truly have it. No matter how deeply we want to have a mother, a spouse, or anyone we love, who makes us feel good, we can never truly have — or own or possess — them. Everything changes; nothing lasts forever. All that brings us happiness must eventually pass beyond our reach. Any kind of love that resists this — any kind of love that has the element of the desire for someone or something to stay in our lives, to stay as they are, to not to change — is an attachment, a grasping, a clinging a Buddhist must cease. The Buddha taught that attachment is the cause of our suffering: all reality is impermanent, yet we want the things we like or love to be permanent.

“In our society,” the Jetsunma Tenzin Palmo, born Diane Perry, writes in her book, The Heroic Heart, “we believe that the more we are attached, the more loving we are. But it is simply not true. Attachment is tricky, but basically it means ‘I want you to make me happy and to make me feel good.’ Conversely love says, ‘I want you to be happy and to make you feel good.’ It doesn’t say anything about me… The important thing is that love allows us to hold things gently instead of grasping tightly. It is an important difference.” She explains, “The test of whether we are attached or not is how we feel if we lose something or someone we love. Are we holding on with both hands or are willing to let go? Inwardly, we need to be able to let go. It’s only when we grasp tightly that we have a problem.” 

“Attachment” is a sticky word. In its literal sense, it refers to a tie or a fastening. Figuratively, it denotes an emotional fastening. When gentle, it’s seen as love, liking, or connection; when strong, it’s seen as clinging. Here, we encounter the first, basic problem: what exactly do we mean by “love”? Tenzin Palmo observes: “In English, ‘love’ is a very multifaceted word. It’s very misused, as we all know. We say, ‘I love my parents, I love my children, I love my partner, I love ice-cream, I love walks in the country, I love television, I love football, I love to meditate…’ All these words for love have very different connotations. We are talking about very different emotions: romantic love, altruistic love, mere pleasure, etc.” Attachment is a kind of love, but what kind of love is it? In simple terms, attachment is a kind of love that says, “you make me happy, so I care for you, I want to be close to you, I don’t want to be without you.” The English word attachment refers to the feeling that you like or love someone or something and that you would be unhappy without them – a feeling of affection or fondness that is characterized by a resistance to be without the person or the thing you like or love. Whenever feelings of loving or liking have the shadow of the fear of loss, we’re talking about attachment.

Batja Mesquita, the social psychologist and affective scientist who studied how the concept of “love” is tailored to interactions and relationships in particular cultural contexts, pointed out that in the Western/Westernized world, “for the most part love is felt for people who offer something we want, need or like; who are psychologically or physically attractive; and who need, love or appreciate us back.” In this context, “Love means giving attention to your loved one — sometimes at the expense of attention for other things — wanting to be close to them, expressing your positive feelings for them, to hug, hold, cuddle, touch, pet (if it is an animal), kiss, and, in case of romantic relationship, have sex with them.” Love “singles out and elevates one particular individual” and it’s ultimately built around the goal of “to be united in mutual admiration, attraction, or longing.” It should be easy to see, why, in this cultural landscape, the notion of not having attachments is so often and so quickly equated as not loving family, friends, pets, possessions, and decried as unhealthy, even malicious. After all, many people insist, what is love if not attachment? “I think it’s fair to say that Americans have some unhealthy concepts around the ideas of love and relationships” says Alex Kakuyo, Buddhist teacher and a former marine “For us, love is attachment-based, almost to the point of obsession.”

The real difference between Buddhists and non-Buddhists is that a Buddhist would recognize the difference between the feelings and relationships lumped into the board category of “love,” and identify attachment - the kind of love that’s characterized by a desire for the things and people we love to not to leave our lives - as grasping and clinging, an unrealistic and self-centered desire for coming and passing things to stay as they are so they can keep us happy.

In Attack of the Clones, when Padmé tells him, she thought, to love is “forbidden for a Jedi,” Anakin discerns two kinds of love: attachment, grouped together with possession, and compassion, which he says, he would define as unconditional love. Unfortunately, many viewers opted for the interpretation that Anakin tries to convince Padmé that compassion would include passionate love, with some Tumblr users even altering the quote, changing “unconditional love” to “unlimited love." Anakin’s statement, meant to convey Lucas philosophy that love is compassion and not attachment, is way too often dismissed as nonsense. Alex Kane wrote in a now-deleted article for StarWars.com: