#like learn how to defend your critiques without being totally dismissive | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

tamayokny · 9 months

Text

i keep getting dragged into the snow white discourse and it's starting to irritate me. like idc if rachel zegler was scared/didn't like the 1937 adaptation as a child, but she needs to do her homework because the prince was not a stalker--and that's the tip of iceberg. but on the other hand, i don't particularly care that the prince isn't going to be in the remake either, and i get that snow white can "choose both" (i.e., being a leader and being in love), but i feel like everyone forgets other details of disney's snow white.

like, of course, snow white has a wicked stepmother who wants her dead because of the queen's jealousy and vanity against her stepdaughter. and while the huntsman advised her to run away, snow white ultimately made the choice to run into the forest. but then snow white realizes she needs to support herself, and she eventually finds friends and creates her own little community of support (i.e., the forest animals and the seven dwarfs)! and sure, i get where some people have issues with snow white cleaning and cooking for the dwarfs and see it as a gendered role, but cooking and cleaning are important skills for fostering independence. so, after saying all of this, i think a lot of people miss the themes of community, support, and independence. all of these themes, along with themes of vanity and jealousy, are still applicable today.

also lol i'm sorry but the prince discourse, again, is so funny to me. like he's only in the 1937 movie for about five minutes but he does have an established relationship and reciprocated feelings with snow white. and when he appears at the end of the movie, the prince wasn't expecting to wake snow white up with "love's first kiss"--he was there to say goodbye to her. he didn't know that "love's first kiss" was going to awaken snow white--only the audience did, which is dramatic irony, a common literary device. anyway the prince is fine but if andrew burnap's character takes over that role and provides something fresh, i'm willing to watch that.

TLDR: snow white discourse is wild. i think people forget or feign ignorance about the details in disney's original snow white film. and while it's totally fine to want to offer a new twist on the tale, don't completely disrespect the original work or completely dismiss ideas on why the original work is so popular in the first place.

#mads makes a text post #like i've been seeing the discourse for a week i'm tired #i do think RZ needs to learn how to do press interviews better #and to actually do her homework because you kind of need to know things to create a good result #she's sabotaging herself #but also WOW everyone is crazy over the prince details too #when our main character is snow white #having a degree in english is a curse #*in this last paragraph orginal work refers to the 1937 adaptation #also if you're going to ask about the other snow white works that came out in the recent years don't #that's another ballpark and i'm solely referring to disney's adaptation of the fairy tale #and btw critiques are totally fine NOTHING is perfect but you have to be...for the lack of a better term...eloquent #like learn how to defend your critiques without being totally dismissive #k i'm done lol

10 notes · View notes

twiststreet · 4 years

Photo

That Jon Stewart interview over at the NY Times (America’s #1 source for Tom Cotton editorials about how we need to use the troops against American citizens) is insufferable.

Look at this question and how he pivots away from it through the magic of gibberish:

Or is it more that your intentions with the [Rally to Restore Sanity] were misguided? At the time, you talked about it as an attempt to encourage some semblance of balance and civility in the way we talked about one another — that the left shouldn’t conflate Tea Partyers and racists, for example. But didn’t that downplay the larger problem of the lunatic fringe on the right being a lot closer to the party’s center than perhaps you wanted to admit? The rally wasn’t about being civil. It was about being precise. The intention was not to suggest that negative things don’t exist or that you shouldn’t fight them, but to be as precise as you can. It’s like the Levittown thing with Bill O’Reilly. He talks all about Levittown: ‘‘That’s where I learned my values. Bootstrapping it. I grew up in Levittown, and we learned that work does it.’’ Well, guess what? The deed to the properties said you were not allowed to sell them to a black person.

A real meaningful critique completely evaded through a buzzword and then pivoting to meaningless Rah Rah social justice speak. What the hell does Levittown have to do with a rally about how the right-wing was actually totally sane and agreeable and we had a lot of common cause with them...? How does Bill O’Reilly’s “imprecision” on Levittown make that any less insane-sounding in Trump Year Four?

He is unable to reckon with a moment whose contours so steadfastly evidence that the open-minded, genteel “conversation” has no political weight, and if anything, is easily exploited by monsters, con artists, etc. While expressing regret that he wasn’t nicer to O’Reilly and John McCain and all the other shits he helped promote on his show-- he only regrets exposing Jim Cramer for being a charlatan?? What?!

And his response to various criticisms devolves from there to the idea that we’re all guilty because we all buy iPhones?? That argument is sometimes an important one to make-- if someone’s arguing that we have some great moral standing that’s at jeopardy, say. There are times when it’s a good argument. But outside of those parameters, and in the parameters Stewart is arguing, it’s ludicrous. Of course we’re all guilty in some area of our life but the idea that our guilt in one area frees us of any ability to render moral judgments or make meaningful critiques in every other area is the sort of foolish, weightless “oh hypocrisy much?” arm-crossing that liberals have confused with politics to absolutely zero effect for a goddamn zillion years.

And then this part is magical:

But fundamentally, we are a resilient and strong and resourceful nation that has oftentimes overcome our worst tendencies — ‘‘overcome’’ is probably too strong a word. But our biggest problem as humans is ignorance, not malevolence.

How do you dismiss malevolence as a major factor in American life when you’re unable to say we’ve overcome our worst tendencies because the current moment we’re living through makes even attempting to suggest that make you choke on your goddamn words because the malevolence is so goddamn present and in-your-face and unavoidable to look out on???

An incredible show during the run-up to the Iraq War, and he was a hugely funny comedian since, I mean, you’re talking the early 90′s. And I’m grateful for all of that. But the moment has moved to a place that’s only highlighted the cracks and fissures in his thinking, and he (and the cohort of television comedy” after him that he cultivated)(except maybe Wyatt Cenac who he famously shit on in a pretty racist-sounding way, as is not brought up in the interview) have failed so spectacularly to adjust to it. And worst of all, without his comedic talent, the jokes have just all become such d- jokes. Stewart would at least make me laugh-- he could sell some bad jokes on off nights, just from all his experience...

But this interview is just... Even the race stuff is so eager to defend the “good cops” and puts such a wishy-washy, “good-liberal” completely nebulous and extremely-difficult -if-not-impossible-to-actually-achieve “accountability” as its target goal that ignores the practical observations of decades as to what transpires in reality, i.e. systems of accountability easily and constantly evaded, ignored, disregarded, captured, etc.

I don’t know. I think I believe there are the right people for moments, and I think Stewart was that guy for his moment. But seeing that kind of person when that moment has moved on, or after you can really take a balance of what they’ve done... I don’t know. I found it hard to read... Sad...

#comedy nerdery #I Love Ranting About Things No-one Normal Cares About... :(

4 notes · View notes

juliandmouton30 · 7 years

Text

Ten thousand IKEA refugee shelters left unused over fire fears, United Nations admits

The United Nations High Commission for Refugees has mothballed 10,000 of IKEA's award-winning refugee shelters over concerns about the product's vulnerability to fire.

Only 5,000 of the 15,000 shelters that UNHCR bought in 2015 have been deployed, meaning that two thirds of them, worth a total of $12,5 million, have yet to be used.

The rest have remained in depots while it carried out an investigation into fire safety and other problems, UNCHR told Dezeen.

The admission comes two days after Better Shelter, the Swedish social entrepreneur that produces the shelters, told Dezeen that a new version of the shelter would be launched this year, addressing a range of design flaws had been identified with the first version.

"In late 2015 the Swiss and German authorities raised concerns around the fire safety of the shelter," said Tapio Vahtola, who leads the Strategic Partnerships department at the UNHCR.

"Safety is of course an absolute priority and following the concerns raised, UNHCR and Better Shelter engaged in a comprehensive process of analysing the results and ensuring the safety of the product through improving the panel design."

The new version of the shelter will feature stronger, lighter and cheaper cladding panels while existing units would now be deployed according to stricter spacing guidelines.

"We are introducing guidelines in order to improve the safety distance between units in camp settings and to minimise the risk of fire spreading between shelters in the case of a fire starting in a settlement," Vahtola said.

He added: "It is important to highlight that the shelter is not fire hazardous. It is fire retardant, but as with any other building or tent it will not withstand flames from an uncontrolled fire."

The flat-pack shelter won the Design Museum's design of the year award earlier this year and is part of the permanent collection at New York's Museum of Modern Art.

The UNHCR's admission came as humanitarian designer Cameron Sinclair claimed that design problems with the shelters were identified during field trials in 2014 but were left out of a report "for fear of losing funding".

Sinclair made the claim in a comment on the story Dezeen published on Thursday describing the problems with the shelters, which are funded by IKEA Foundation.

"A team of us in Ethiopia had done an independent analysis of the structures in 2014 and expressed our concerns to both Better Shelter and the IKEA Foundation," wrote Sinclair, who is former co-founder of Architecture for Humanity and now heads Airbnb's humanitarian team.

Sinclair said he was given a file of photos showing design and durability flaws, including some showing DIY repairs undertaken by refugees.

"We only learned of the issues late night when one of the NGO [non-governmental organisation] field engineers that was responsible for the pilot programme mentioned what they left out of the report, for fear of losing funding, and had a jump drive of images that weren't shared."

Sinclair posted one of the images alongside his comment. The photo shows a joint in the internal metal-tube frame of the shelter held together with plastic bags, which were applied by refugees in an attempt to stabilise the unit.

He said he passed on his concerns to IKEA Foundation in an email but did not get a reply.

This photo of DIY repairs to the frame of a Better Shelter was one of many handed to Cameron Sinclair by an anonymous field worker in 2014

The UNHCR which bought 10,000 of the shelters at the start of 2015 and a further 5,000 later that year, said it was unaware of the claims.

"We were not aware of this, and neither are we aware of any involvement by NGO partners in reviewing the shelters when they were tested," said Tapio Vahtola.

"No NGO has been responsible for any pilot programme. UNHCR has always had dedicated staff overseeing the testing and piloting the shelters."

Vahtola added: "I believe this comment refers to the small scale pilot in Dollo Ado, Ethiopia [where] the ones providing crucial inputs to our testing and piloting were refugees themselves."

It has also emerged that the Centre for Refugee Studies at the University of Oxford is studying the shelter's performance as part of its Architectures of Displacement research project.

Professor Tom Scott-Smith, who is heading the project, said he had heard reports of problems with the shelter.

"There are a variety of criticisms about the product and we've been researching its history and use for a while now," he said.

The Better Shelter is designed to be assembled by four people in four hours without requiring specialist tools

Problems with the shelter first emerged when humanitarian expert Killian Klienschmidt told Dezeen about shortcomings he had heard from humanitarian workers in the field. These include problems with wheelchair access, ventilation and rigidity.

"It takes four hours to assemble, it doesn't have a groundsheet and it's not modular as it should be," Kleinschmidt said. "There have been complaints about the wind going through. It doesn't take into consideration that people like to adjust the space themselves and that is part of their dignity."

Tapio Vahtola defended the UNHCR's methodology in a statement sent to Dezeen.

IKEA flat-pack refugee shelter wins Design of the Year 2016

"I believe that it is important that UNHCR continues to challenge itself, and the partners it is fortunate enough to work with, to constantly improve the products, services and process we employ to provide refugees with protection and assistance, and ultimately, to help them to live more dignified lives," he wrote.

"One way that we do this is through innovation, and through partnerships, with among other organisations, Better Shelter. The very nature of innovation and new product development project implies improvements are required along the road, iterations based on experience, on end-user engagement, and on robust data, but underlined by a commitment to try to constantly improve.

The shelter was developed as a better alternative to tents for temporary refugee housing

"As an organisation, we encourage inputs, observations, and constructive criticisms and critiques, as in most cases, this helps us to improve how we work. In this case, the continued commitment to improving the product should be the real testimony of the value of the project, that is informed in part by for example, positive end user experience, as the one described by the refugee quoted in your story."

Cameron Sinclair also praised Better Shelter and IKEA for their openness in the face of criticism of the shelter.

"Kudos to the Better Shelter team for being so open in the initial challenges with the housing design," he wrote. "Better Shelter and IKEA were extremely receptive in receiving honest feedback and did an excellent job in following up. Given [Sinclair's own architecture firm] Small Works was working on re-deployable housing at the time, they could have been dismissive."

The 17.5-square-metre flat-pack shelter, which costs $1,250 (£968), was designed as a more comfortable and longer-lasting alternative to tents for rapid deployment in emergency situations. Constructed of a tubular metal frame and clad in flexible snap-together panels, it can be assembled by four people in four hours. Features include solar-powered lights and lockable doors.

Most of the 5,000 shelters deployed so far are in Iraq, where 3,500 are in use. There are 400 in Djibouti and 100 in Niger, with the rest in Serbia, Macedonia and Greece.

The post Ten thousand IKEA refugee shelters left unused over fire fears, United Nations admits appeared first on Dezeen.

from ifttt-furniture https://www.dezeen.com/2017/04/29/united-nations-admits-10000-ikea-better-shelter-refugees-mothballed-fire-fears/

0 notes

jeniferdlanceau · 7 years