oh damn, I didn’t look at it that way at all! I was thinking of it like it was the view from the Eastern Mediterranean, meaning that was the contextual (not geometric) center, the “I” (and eye) of the map. Probably that is just my bias because that part of the Med happens to be where my head is at most of the time. You’re quite right that if the usual world map’s putting the north at the top means privileging the North, then this one’s having the west at the top ought to mean something similar. On the other hand, there’s no mathematical way this or any projection makes the western landmass bigger the way the much-discussed Mercator does to the northern. And it does cut Western Europe off at an odd point, and there’s more African landmass visible than European...I wonder if this is a crop of something with a larger extent. If so, hard to tell what’s really going on, but the fact that the labels are in French suggest something about the mapmaker’s priorities at least.

Loved reading this after your reblog of the post about emotionally unavailable people using lowercase where you tagged it "leave me alone."

I'm so sorry.

Is the logic of this literally "they make you view cops as individuals so that you will view cops as groups"?

SHOCKING

Is it as good as Hannibal though? ...And is this a trick question?....;)

@fursasaida did you read the article? I'm curious as to your thoughts.

I don’t feel like there are particularly interesting thoughts to be had? It’s bad and highly dumb; its attempt to apply allosemitism (a concept I find, at best, of dubious usefulness in the first place) betrays a failure to understand what it is or what it intends to describe. This is a piece that argues that the assertion that Clinton rigged the primary is antisemitic--not because one can’t accuse a person of rigging an election without being antisemitic, mind you, but because the allegation lacks sufficient support. So this allegation is antisemitic not because it traffics in notions of shadowy machinations (which, though the line can be delicate, don’t even themselves have to be antisemitic), but because it’s possibly to probably untrue. I mean, it’s possibly to probably untrue that it will be 60 degrees in DC today, yet I don’t believe that assertion is antisemitic. I don’t understand how any reasonable person with half a notion of what antisemitism is or how it functions could process such a claim as anything but nonsensical. (And self-defeating to a frankly bizarre level; there was a much easier reach, though still a reach, to be made.) This may be a balm to certain Clinton supporters, I suppose, but in the meantime it serves to dilute understandings of what antisemitism is and why it remains specific to Jews (and affects Jews uniquely).

That some people--primarily the far right, and by no means Donna Brazile, Bernie Sanders (!), or Elizabeth Warren--attempt to tar Clinton with insinuations of antisemitic stereotypes does not denote that Clinton is a “new Jewish scapegoat,” but simply that antisemitism is alive and well. I don’t deny that clearly antisemitic dog whistles have been made about her (as with the cited comparison to the Rothschilds), but again, this does not make the discourse around her new, unique, or notable for anything other than its basic antisemitism. Which, again, I feel compelled to note, is not a topic that is about Hillary Clinton.