#kerfuffles

But the Republicans pulled a Humpty Dumpty here.

Imagine if someone was like,

"Man, I hate anime. Anime has had a negative influence on animation and it's way too influential. I hate anime like Dragon Ball Z, Minions, and Boss Baby. They're always trying to market these obnoxious cutesy characters to us."

And then you went, "Uh, two of the things you just named aren't anime"

And they went, "Oh! So all of a sudden you're going to try to tell me anime has no impact on modern animation? After years of talking up anime and saying it's this amazing other way of doing things all of a sudden you're trying to pretend that anime's just some meaningless little side thing? We all know it's a huge industry which most animators cite as a major influence but as soon as someone criticizes it you pretend that it's not a big deal, you're an absurd hypocrite and everyone can see it!"

Like, no, man, you're just using the wrong word, anime has a more specific meaning than, "Cartoon I don't like"

Same with Critical Race Theory; as best I understand it, before the Republicans got their hands on it, it was defined as a subset of legal scholarship and legal history scholarship; but the Republicans just blatantly ignore that definition and use it to mean, apparently, "All left-wing talk about race that I dislike"

Here's an article from the Federalist where the author does not understand some incredibly simple statements from Ibram X. Kendi.

Kendi says he's inspired by Critical Race Theory, but, not being a legal scholar, he's not a Critical Race Theorist.

This is the simplest goddamn thing in the world and the guy writing this article just cannot grasp it.

"Paul Simon was inspired by African musical traditions so therefore he must be an African Musician, and anybody who objects to that characterization is being disingenuous!"

That's exactly analogous to what this Federalist article is arguing at great length.

Such a kerfuffle. In the previous post, I went on and on about forecast cold weather, possible snow, possible icy roads, and–my own special bugaboo–possible power outages. Hysteria stemmed from living through the February 2021 Texas Freeze, six days without power, four without water–I never tire of repeating that–burning 2x4s in a faux fireplace and, on the last day, sending David off to bail our…

#sometimes the solution is the problem

... Honestly though that’s rather good from my POV. The overtones you mention are appropriate as regards a vague but large percentage of my devotional life, so if that’s the note the phrase “involved with” strikes, at least it's a note more or less in tune. “Work with” isn’t wrong either, but it nets out at somewhat less right than “involved with.” I’ve used “entangled with” before but it’s a bit on the spluttery side -- “involved with" is less defensive and thus has greater utility. I like. (memo to self: don’t forget all about this in two minutes, now, it’s good)

I’ve never found a word or phrase that feels right and complete for this, even just privately. But one must say something. There’s a nonzero chance haters gonna pop up with hate, whatever lexicon one happens to draw upon, so, might as well be hanged for a pound as a penny -- I mean, if I do pull a bad lotto ticket on a given day and get shat on, I’d rather it be over something I actually am or do: I'm old and tough and resilient and it’s more energizing and amusing and also has a better chance of being productive for me than being drawn into irritable defense of some semi-arbitrary position. (Like, “work with" -- that’s a phrase I’ll stand up for as valid, and as possessing real utility, if I see the need, I’m just, kinda, not that invested.)

@runecestershire, not content, added in a follow-up ask:

And then there's always "in cahoots with" :)

Also, what if we were to AU them? It’s no longer a book that someone’s felt was less than the obviously perfect, gilded apogee of Literature that the author has declared it. Instead, let’s imagine the author is a teenage girl whose Domestic Science final project was a prom dress -- a poorly-fitted prom dress, made from a really weirdly textured, unflattering color, in a style that is at that awkward “out of date, but not out of date enough to be intentionally out of date, or ‘retro’” just...”So last season, honey.” 

And suppose she overhears someone she kind of vaguely recognizes (the kid who’s always sitting by the door in the lunch room that you have to use to get to the stairs to go to your locker? The kid who’s always at the library door before classes start? You see them every day but have no reason to stop and talk or even overhear their name.) and that kid is saying, “You know, I get that she worked really hard on this dress but, um. Maybe she should have left it in the DomSci room? I mean, it doesn’t really fit her right. And I’m not sure what style it was supposed to be, but it missed all of the cool ones. And I’m sure she loves the fabric but it made her look vaguely itchy all night and the color really washed her out/overwhelmed her/made me think of the time I ate way too many popsicles and puked rainbows.”

Zaha Hadid settles lawsuit, donates proceeds to laborers’ rights charity

Hadid’s Al Wakrah Stadium. (Courtesy Zaha Hadid Architects)

One of the biggest architectural head-to-head matches of 2014 has come to an amicable end. As AN reported last fall, Zaha Hadid sued New York Review of Books critic Martin Filler for defamation for comments he made about her in a review of Rowan Moore’s Why We Build: Power and Desire in Architecture.

Continue reading after the jump.