#i see all different arguments on my dash and they all have merit but they all have problems too | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

asha-mage · 1 year ago

Text

I went back and forth on responding to this this but I'll go ahead and assume good faith and respond in kind-

I didn't mention Liandrin for the same reason I didn't bring up Leane: because I haven't seen as much criticism of those changes, which is not to say it doesn't exist it just means it hasn't popped on my dash.

But to talk to Liandrin on merits: for a moment I don't think Liandrin is 'taking' scenes from Siuan anymore then Moiraine is. Her scene with Nynaeve regarding swords and the Power is certainly based on the one with Siuan but it also has a fundamentally different tone and point then the one in the books. Liandrin is being established as a personal foil and antagonist to Nynaeve, and her character all season has been more or less satellite to that point. As a result their is a much more hostile and dangerous element to their confrontation then one Siuan and Nynaeve have. She is trying to challenge Nynaeve, to push her where she wants her to go, to force her to see things the way she does- that Warders are useless and compassion is a weakness and the only thing that matters is Power. Siuan's confrontation with her in the books by contrast is much more about teaching Nynaeve that she doesn't know best, that she needs to learn to open her mind and accept her own limitations if she's going to advance anywhere, or help anyone, Siuan isn't threatening her or acting with real malice, but with care, if a tough love sort of care. It's a good scene and I like it a lot, but I'm also not sure it would work in the context of this adaption, since in order for Liandrin's betrayal in episode 5 to have impact she needs are more complex relationship with one of those she is betraying.

Re: Egwene and Perrin. I brought them up specifically because their the only ones of the main group who haven't been benched for a full episode (though Perrin is likely to be out next week, so it would probably be Egwene) besides Nynaeve, who I don't think you could cut any scenes from in the show without having to completely rework the structure of the plot line. Maksim (and Ivhon for that matter) is in the same position as Liandrin- their getting more because their satellite characters to the arcs of other more important characters, namely Lan and Nynaeve.

More broadly speaking to the subject of race: while I understand people's frustrations I feel like their not always taking being fair to a show that, has after all made huge strides in it's effort to be more racially diverse- far more so then Game of Thrones. The decision to cast in a race-blind fashion (using the Breaking to explain a lack of racial homogony among the nations) and it's let them cast characters that where explicitly described as white in the books as people of color instead.

I also disagree with the assertion that their is a pattern scenes and content being taken from characters of color and given to white characters. In terms of merges and shifts (which I am still not convinced is the situation with Siuan but for the sake of argument), the axe has swung the other way as often: Hurin (who it should be noted has far more screen time in The Great Hunt then Siuan does, and a large impact on Rand's character re: class) has been cut and folded into Elyas, Gaul into Avienda, Myrelle into Alanna.

And the thing is I agree with all of these choices: this season is busy, with so many spinning plates in the air, and the only have eight episodes. Of course some things are going to be cut and recombined, and for the most part they've worked to make sure those cuts and merges are interesting. Ivhon and Maxium might be satellite characters, but Alanna is most certainly not: being worked into several different stories and getting far more backstory and characterization then she ever got in the books, and that's in turn has let Priyanka Bose kill it this season. Elyas being with the Hunt has let us see him both out of his element, forced to interact with the civilization he's cut himself off from, and within it, showing Perrin the robes of being a wolf brother. Even from what little we've seen of Avienda so far we're getting to sides of her only explored briefly in the book, as a full Maiden of the Spear, not yet forced on the path to becoming a Wise One, a soldier and warrior full of Aiel pride and strength. That alone would be wroth cutting Gaul, even though his friendship with Perrin is one of my favorite parts of Perrin's whole arc. Heck, Leane's even absorbing things from Sheriam (taking the lion's share of the Accepted test dialogue) and Sheriam wasn't even cut.

I wont speak more to Sophie Okoedo availability or lack of it since you're right I don't have any hard facts, only educated guesses. I also wont speak to anything in Episode 6 as I haven't seen it yet and I've deliberately avoided spoilers. I just feel like it's worth noting that, Siuan's presence in the Great Hunt is also sharply limited, and if they where going to expand it they would have to have given her an arc of her own, the way they did Lan and Moiriaine this season. Sophie Okoedo is not an actress you bring in to be a satellite character to someone else, and given how brief the season is and how busy, I don't know where you put an arc for her, even two or three episode arc, without bringing the ax down on someone else.

Finally, I want to put it out that I am not saying people shouldn't criticize the show, or it's choices. I'm always down for good faith criticism, analysis, and debate. I just think it's important to look at the whole picture when doing that, and consider what's going on and what's an intentional, what's an oversight, what's something that might be a constraint beyond anyone's control (I have to keep reminding myself that this season was made during the height of COVID and that's why so many scenes have so few characters in them), and what's having to be done to make the story work in a new medium and a new decades.

I've been reflecting on it for a few days and I think my problem with the assertion that Moiraine is 'taking' Siuan's scenes/character arc because she is having to navigate the world without the One Power is that it's like saying she's 'taking' Rand's character arc by driving those she cares for away as a trauma response and justifying it to herself with it being to 'protect' them.

Like, on one hand I get it. People are frustrated we aren't getting as much Siuan this season as they wanted, but I think it's jumping the gun to say that her arc is being handed to Moiraine, not least because I don't see Moiraine's lack of saidar lasting much longer.

The books are full of characters paralleling each other in interesting ways, and having mirroring sometimes directly matching story beats. It makes sense to give Moiraine a stronger arc, especially one that will parallel Siuan's later on: It fills in the space from Moiraine being absent for most of The Great Hunt, it touches on a lot of the key themes of the series (the relationship between people and power, the importance of duty, the strength of people to keep fighting even when all seems lost), and it will makes the events of the Shadow Rising and the Fires of Heaven a lot more impactful when they come to pass.

We already know Siuan's going to have a bigger role in season 3, and I'm not sure even if Sophie was available for filming more in season 2 that it would have been a good idea to include a whole arc for her. Already the show is jam packed right now, straining to accommodate all the entire cast, especially when you remember that COVID restrictions at the time where limited the number of people who could be in a given scene. Someone, likely several someones, would have had to be cut to make room for a Siuan arc this season: and likely not a minor character or an antagonist either. I don't know that the show would be better for it if we had less Perrin or Egwene in favor more Siuan, especially given it's far to early to do more then forehsadow her main plotline: the Tower Coup.

Basically, I wish people would trust the show runners more, especially when they have earned it by showing time and time again how much love and care they have for this series, and have some patience to let the story evolve the way they did with the books.

77 notes · View notes

kumeko · 3 years ago

Text

Title: Garreg Mach Yearbook Chronicles

A/N: For the @garregmachzine I got to write four different snippets. It was a fun challenge trying to cram everything into a drabble.

Featuring: Leonie's troubles with Seteth and Flayn, Hilda charming Ferdinand to escape battle, Annette dealing with a club composed of Linhardt and Marianne, and Claude dodging Hubert's censor.

…

Fishing Tournament

Sitting on the banks of the pond, Leonie watched as her bobber dipped in and out of the water, floating idly along an invisible current. With any luck, she’d catch a fish soon. A big one, hopefully. Usually by now she’d have caught at least one or two, but then usually she was also alone while she fished. Leonie cast an eye around her, biting her cheek at the sight of her fellow classmates. Despite how early in the morning it was, it felt like half the monastery was sitting along the pond, trying their best to catch a fish.

Then again, it wasn’t everyday that Seteth held a fishing contest. After all that’d happened in the past few months, she couldn’t deny that they needed a break like this and it seemed that everyone else agreed. Byleth sat at the docks, quietly fishing. Next to her, Sylvain lost his balance and flailed as he struggled to keep out of the water. In the distance, she spotted Caspar and Raphael comparing their catches.

“I see you are also entering the fishing contest,” a slightly musical voice asked from behind her. Startled from her thoughts, Leonie looked up in time to catch Flayn as she sat down next to her. Like, right next to her. Smiling softly, Flayn clasped her hands together as she stared at Leonie’s rod. “Did you catch anything?”

“N-not yet.” Leonie shook her head, feeling a little awkward at the proximity. Maybe if she shifted the other way—

“That is a pity.” Seteth slowly sat down on her other side, a fishing rod in hand. He cast his line, his eyes on her the entire time. “It will not be much of a contest if there are no entries.”

Leonie resisted the urge to get up and run. What was it with these siblings, pinning her in like this? She felt sandwiched, with no way to escape. “I’m sure someone will manage to catch a good fish or two. Give me an hour, and I’m sure I can wrangle up a few myself.”

“Oh, that’s great.” Flayn clapped her hands. “However, that leaves a different problem. We’ll have all these fishes, and no one to cook them.”

Leonie swallowed. This was starting to sound familiar. “There are plenty of cooks—”

“Leonie has excellent skills,” Seteth suggested, as though he’d just thought of it. “Maybe she could?”

“Really?” Flayn lit up, before flashing her an innocent smile. “Leonie, would you mind?”

She should have just listened to her instincts and run.

-x-

Crest Studies

When Annette joined the academy, she had never seen herself leading a club, or leading anything for that matter. Sure, she would join one or two, but leadership was for the elites, for Dimitri’s and Sylvain’s of the world. Well, maybe not Sylvain exactly, but there were plenty other nobles who could fit the bill. Ferdinand. Lorenz. Hubert.

Yet it was her, not them, standing in front of the Blue Lions classroom, looking at her Crest Studies clubmates. To be perfectly honest, when the other options were the lazy Lindhardt and the shy Marianne, if Annette didn’t take the lead, nothing would get done. Even now, Lindhardt was dozing on his desk while Marianne fidgeted nervously.

Annette bit her cheek. She should have joined the gardening club. Clearing her throat, she announced, “For today’s activity, we’re going to the market.”

“W-what?” Marianne’s eyes grew wide. Sometimes, it looked like she didn’t know why she was in the club. “The market?”

“Why?” Lazily, Lindhardt lifted his head and gave her a baleful glare. “That’s a waste of effort.”

From the teacher’s desk, Professor Hanneman gave her thumbs up. At least someone liked her proposition. Annette quickly refuted, “It’s not.”

“We study crests,” Lindhardt replied languidly. “It’s a waste.”

Something about him always riled her up. She could feel her hackles rising. Stalking toward him, she rested her hands on her hip and bit out. “It’s not. We need to know what people think of crests.”

“Annette’s right.” Hanneman nodded sagely, intervening before an argument started. “It’s important to consider different perspectives when studying a topic.”

“But talking to people…” Marianne gnawed on her lip. “I’m not sure—”

“It’ll be fine.” Annette clasped Marianne’s hands, squeezing them tight. “Besides, we’re going to interview later, so this is good practice.”

Hesitantly, Marianne nodded. “I-I suppose that’s true.”

“Can’t we just interview now and get it over with?” Linhardt interjected, yawning.

Annette pulled Marianne up to her feet. “We’re going to the market,” she stated firmly, refusing to broker any more arguments. “If you want to decide what we’re doing, then you be the club president.”

It was an ultimatum he’d never take, and they both knew it. With a sigh, he got up. “Fine, I suppose there’s some merit to it.”

“Good.” Annette grinned as she gently tugged Marianne toward the door. Finally, she could tell Mercedes that they’d done something other than sit in a classroom. Finally, just like all the other clubs, she was going to go out with her clubmates and do something fun.

Perhaps there was some merit to being club president, after all.

-x-

Battle of the Eagle and Lion

I’d say it is an honour to write about the Battle of the Eagle and the Lion, but that was before so many of my drafts got mysteriously burned or destroyed because if I happen to make any unflattering comments about Edelgard, I have to start over. Though I would argue they aren’t disparaging, but who am I to argue with her guard dog, Hubert?

So what can I say about the Battle? Well, I guess the obvious—all three of our houses showed what they did best: Edelgard with her strategies, Dimitri with his training, and me with my ‘schemes’. I call them strategies, others call them traps, to-may-to, to-mah-to. Honestly, I didn’t do anything sinister this time around. If a lot of students just happened to get a case of mild food poisoning, well, things happen. Raphael got it too and you don’t hear me complaining about sabotage.

Let’s see, something flattering—ah, I know! It’s actually quite impressive how much Edelgard was able to move despite her illness. Honestly, if someone had poisoned, they’d better know to up the dosage next time. Despite her thinning ranks, she managed to set up her classmates quite skillfully, and Hubert somehow managed to do a lot of damage despite looking like he needed to find the closest toilet.

Of course, Dimitri powered his way through the food poisoning. I think he’s got the strength of a dozen soldiers, or boars as Felix likes to put it. Felix also managed to move, but I think that was purely out of spite. It’s amazing what a motivation spite is. Then again, I think Hubert would know all about that, wouldn’t he?

My house, of course, were the cleverest of the bunch, carefully goading out our enemies and defeating them one by one. Despite losing our strongest member, we rallied around each other and fought back. It was a close fight by all reckoning. And honestly if Edelgard lost (notice I said if, Hubert!), it wouldn’t be all that shameful, considering the handicaps she had.

Now, you might be wondering who actually won? Why it’s (scorched words) of course! Was there ever any doubt?

-x-

Mission Battles

Out of all the school activities she was forced to do, Hilda disliked the missions and mock battles the most. With the others, she could get away with appealing her classmates into helping her, whether it was Marianne in the library or Raphael with the stables or some other poor, hapless soul who crossed her path. As long as it was done, no one was the wiser.

On the battlefield, she wasn’t quite as lucky. No one could protect her the entire time and her charms were entirely wasted on the enemy. It wasn’t like they’d stop fighting her just because she asked.

Or maybe, if she—no, no, it was best to banish that thought. Hilda gripped her axe as she studied the battlefield before her. Just ahead of her was a bandit and unfortunately, there was no ally in sight to protect her. She was going to have to cut this one down herself. “I don’t suppose you’d back down?”

The bandit roared in response, charging at her.

“Step back!” Ferdinand quickly dashed ahead of her, his sword gleaming in the sunlight as he slashed down on her foe. With two quick strikes, the bandit was down and her rescuer looked at her triumphantly over his shoulder. “You okay?”

“Yes! Thanks so much!” Hilda clasped one of his hands and gave him a soft smile. She stood corrected—she could absolutely charm her way through a battle, as long as it was one of those rare cross-house battles.

“No problem.” Ferdinand smiled brightly, before looking over his shoulder at Edelgard. “As you can see, I have struck down another enemy. That brings my count to higher than yours, does it not?”

“We’re in the middle of battle, Ferdinand,” Edelgard warned, axe clenched tightly in her hands. “We’re not competing.”

“Considering how one-sided it is, I could hardly call it a competition.” Ferdinand sniped, trying to pick a fight as usual.

Judging by Edelgard’s weary expression, his taunts still didn’t work. Determining that Hilda was safe enough, Ferdinand once more returned to Edelgard’s side, no doubt challenging her once again. It was impressive how he didn’t give up. A little sad, but impressive.

If he wasn’t going to give up, neither would she. There was bound to be another sucke—noble man willing to lay his life for a damsel in dress. Catching sight of a flash of red, Hilda smiled. “Oh, Sylvain!” she called out, batting her eyes.

Perhaps she could charm her way out of fighting too.

#fe3h #hilda valentine goneril #claude von riegan #annette fantine dominic #leonie pinelli #seteth #flayn #marianne von edmund #linhardt von hevring #ferdinand von aegir #fanfic

15 notes · View notes

androsswannabe · 6 years ago

Note

🌟

[ Family Headcanons | Not Accepting. ]

🌟 = Who is your muse’s favorite family member, why?

Obviously, it’s Andrew’s uncle. Mainly rooted for one big reason.

It’s the only one he knows. The only one that ever supported him. The only one who raised him. He doesn’t know his parents, cousins, or anyone else other than Andross himself. Andrew does everything for his uncle, it’s easy to say he’s sucking up or whatever, but if we take into context of what he says? What is there is a certain fondness and empathy for his uncle. Not for his ideals, but for the person behind it saying this. Andrew would have to find visual proof or true evidence that his uncle did these horrible things in order to finally step away from him.

I know a lot of people love the sentimentalities of family. That he Andrew and Dash would get along, or have arguments to work together to revive Venom or whatever. But I sincerely think they are either completely unaware of each other’s existence or alternatively if they do know each other its contempt/apathy.

I’m in the camp that Andrew might not even know who he is at all and Dash just plain doesn’t care at best if we account that Dash has a laser focus on Fox McCloud, Falco Lombardi, and the ideals of Andross within the context with the game of Command.

I think a big difference is Dash is focusing on the raw ideas of Andross, and Andrew is focusing on the person who he perceives cared about him. Mostly due to how differently they were raised.

Andrew is blocking out the bad that Andross did because he cares about him but would be horrified if he found out the full truth.

Dash is aware of the bad, but playing it down as perhaps a fluke and the wrong implementation because he sees merit in the ideals.

This is where their conflict would rise from.

Both have their blind spots but it all comes from different perspectives. One from knowing the man but not the full extent due to propaganda on Venom’s side. While the other was just knowing the ideas and what horrible things he did but still seeing merit in the ideas to try again.

One is without the whole picture, while the other is without love.

This got me babbling and so on, but that’s mostly my perspective on the topic.

#( headcanon )#tigerofthestars

4 notes · View notes

thenuanceddebater · 7 years ago

Text

On Trump’s Remarks About MS-13

While I haven’t made a post recently, I have been lurking around tumblr, and my dash is entirely chock-full of people arguing the merits of Donald Trump’s comments about MS-13. I think everyone who follows me knows that Donald Trump said:

“We have people coming into the country, or trying to come in — and we’re stopping a lot of them — but we’re taking people out of the country. You wouldn’t believe how bad these people are. These aren’t people. These are animals”

And defended himself from charges of making a racist remark toward illegal immigrants by saying that he was referring only to gang members part of MS-13.

Now, I’m going to leave aside the debate over whether or not Trump’s comments were only in response to a question about MS-13. There’s a debate to have over that, and I think it’s not totally clear that this is the case. But that’s irrelevant to the case that I want to argue here: The case that even if Trump’s comments only referred to MS-13 members that should still not be seen as acceptable. It’s a complex case and requires the explanation of one of my precepts to completely understand. So, with that being said, let us begin.

I’ll start with a simple statement: Someone being humane is different than someone being human. That extra “e” has a lot of significance. And here’s why.

Dehumanization is a bad, bad thing. It’s an element of some of the worst behaviors humans are capable of. It’s an element of genocide. It’s an element of crimes against humanity. It’s an element of war crimes. It’s an element of racism and all other forms of bigotry. There is basically no place dehumanization occurs where it is a good thing. And I don’t think I need to argue that point too hard. I think most people will admit that dehumanization in these contexts is not a good thing. However, they will defend their position through statements that attacking the humanity of an individual because of their actions is not the same thing as attacking the humanity of a group because of unchangeable traits, or their religion, etc. Essentially they will make the point that criticizing action or changeable characteristics is different from criticizing unchangeable attributes. And that’s a well-made point. But I don’t think it applies here.

Why? Because one of the most important traits about people who do terrible, horrible, evil things is that they are in fact people. Philip Zimbardo’s book The Lucifer Effect (which I must have recommended over a dozen times at this point and still strongly recommend) makes this point, very, very clearly. We’ve looked at your average, everyday American through things like the Milgram Experiments, and the Asch conformity experiment and we’ve found that they are willing to largely go beyond the boundaries of what they believe to be right regardless of gender or race in the former, or to change their opinions they believe to be right for the sake of conformity and “fitting-in” in the case of the latter. These are not traits that are unique to the perpetrators of mass atrocity, murder, rape, etc. They are traits that exist in every single one of us. They are part of what make us human beings. And that’s an incredibly disquieting and uncomfortable thought. But it’s a very, very important one.

A frequent argument I have seen in favor of the idea that calling MS-13 animals is to bring up ISIS and the Nazis-- two entities that most people even on this website believe are in fact evil. The reasoning essentially goes that the Nazis were animals because of what they did to Jews and other groups during the Holocaust. Or ISIS are animals because of what they do to journalists, Yazidis, non-radical Muslims, victims of terrorism, etc. And surely no one will deny that these actions are horrific. I certainly won’t. I will also not deny that these actions are inhumane and reflect a part of humanity that I struggle to understand on a personal level. However, both the Nazis, and ISIS are in fact collections of human beings. They are made up of people who on a basic biological level are incredibly similar to you or I. And sometimes it’s distressing to know just how similar.

After World War II, there was a popular argument that the Nazis were in fact all insane, evil, demon-people who perpetrated the Holocaust because of some internal failing of character or humanity. There were psychological studies done on Nazi officers in order to determine whether or not they were in fact irreversibly broken humans, and they came up empty handed. The Nazi officers were essentially normal. The only difference was that like officers in other militaries, they were slightly more intelligent than average. The “Mad Nazi Hypothesis” as it was called was in fact mad itself, and emblematic of the fundamental attribution error where a person believes a bad action of another is caused through a lack of character, whereas their own failures are created not through their character but through circumstances. Because the truth is, if I was a German in 1937, I don’t know if I would have been opposed to Hitler’s rise as I hope I would be. And again, that’s a disquieting but exceptionally important thought. In fact, one of the main lessons of the Holocaust, and of atrocity in general in my view, is that it is not unique in its perpetration-- just in how mechanized it was. It’s not that the Nazis cannot rise somewhere else because of how evil, warped, and twisted the Germans of the Third Reich were, but that we will not let them rise elsewhere. That’s why I view “Never Again” as a vow more than as a statement of fact.

Because people do horrible, horrible things under the influence of ideology. And they do so despite any moral convictions they may have had before about such actions, and generally convinced they are good people or doing the right thing. And no one is innately immune from this. I am certainly not immune. I don’t know that I wouldn’t be an “animal” if placed in some of the situations I’ve mentioned. I don’t know if I would or would not conform to the atrocities going on around me. But I do know one thing. I would still be a human. At no point would my humanity, would my similarity to any other person on this planet change or become conditional. Because people who do horrible things are still people. There is nothing innately good about being a human. There is nothing that the word human suggests about a person’s values or character. I do not become less of a human when I am not a good person.

So, it’s important to recognize that MS-13, the Nazis, ISIS, the people you disagree with, etc. are all human beings. It’s important to understand that their actions are not any more shaped by character or evil than yours are. It’s important to comprehend that part of humanity is being capable of these terrible, evil atrocities. And it’s vital to see that the word “human” is in no way, shape, or form a compliment or attempting to mollycoddle terrorists or evil people. Instead, it’s an important step to realizing some of the major lessons that our most horrific historical actions have to teach us: That humans are capable of great evil. Not animals. Humans. Because I return to my statement I made at the very beginning of this post: Someone being humane is different than someone being human. And I don’t support Donald Trump’s statement primarily because it obscures this fact.

#nuance #politics #personal philosophy #personal rant #genocide #morals of language #original content

29 notes · View notes

leviathangourmet · 6 years ago

Link

In the highly controversial area of human intelligence, the ‘Greater Male Variability Hypothesis’ (GMVH) asserts that there are more idiots and more geniuses among men than among women. Darwin’s research on evolution in the nineteenth century found that, although there are many exceptions for specific traits and species, there is generally more variability in males than in females of the same species throughout the animal kingdom.

Evidence for this hypothesis is fairly robust and has been reported in species ranging from adders and sockeye salmon to wasps and orangutans, as well as humans. Multiple studies have found that boys and men are over-represented at both the high and low ends of the distributions in categories ranging from birth weight and brain structures and 60-meter dash times to reading and mathematics test scores. There are significantly more men than women, for example, among Nobel laureates, music composers, and chess champions—and also among homeless people, suicide victims, and federal prison inmates.

Darwin had also raised the question of why males in many species might have evolved to be more variable than females, and when I learned that the answer to his question remained elusive, I set out to look for a scientific explanation. My aim was not to prove or disprove that the hypothesis applies to human intelligence or to any other specific traits or species, but simply to discover a logical reason that could help explain how gender differences in variability might naturally arise in the same species.

I came up with a simple intuitive mathematical argument based on biological and evolutionary principles and enlisted Sergei Tabachnikov, a Professor of Mathematics at Pennsylvania State University, to help me flesh out the model. When I posted a preprint on the open-access mathematics archives in May of last year, a variability researcher at Durham University in the UK got in touch by email. He described our joint paper as “an excellent summary of the research to date in this field,” adding that “it certainly underpins my earlier work on impulsivity, aggression and general evolutionary theory and it is nice to see an actual theoretical model that can be drawn upon in discussion (which I think the literature, particularly in education, has lacked to date). I think this is a welcome addition to the field.”

So far, so good.

Once we had written up our findings, Sergei and I decided to try for publication in the Mathematical Intelligencer, the ‘Viewpoint’ section of which specifically welcomes articles on contentious topics. The Intelligencer’s editor-in-chief is Marjorie Wikler Senechal, Professor Emerita of Mathematics and the History of Science at Smith College. She liked our draft, and declared herself to be untroubled by the prospect of controversy. “In principle,” she told Sergei in an email, “I am happy to stir up controversy and few topics generate more than this one. After the Middlebury fracas, in which none of the protestors had read the book they were protesting, we could make a real contribution here by insisting that all views be heard, and providing links to them.”

Professor Senechal suggested that we might enliven our paper by mentioning Harvard President Larry Summers, who was swiftly defenestrated in 2005 for saying that the GMVH might be a contributing factor to the dearth of women in physics and mathematics departments at top universities. With her editorial guidance, our paper underwent several further revisions until, on April 3, 2017, our manuscript was officially accepted for publication. The paper was typeset in India, and proofread by an assistant editor who is also a mathematics professor in Kansas. It was scheduled to appear in the international journal’s first issue of 2018, with an acknowledgement of funding support to my co-author from the National Science Foundation. All normal academic procedure.

Coincidentally, at about the same time, anxiety about gender-parity erupted in Silicon Valley. The same anti-variability argument used to justify the sacking of President Summers resurfaced when Google engineer James Damore suggested that several innate biological factors, including gender differences in variability, might help explain gender disparities in Silicon Valley hi-tech jobs. For sending out an internal memo to that effect, he too was summarily fired.

No sooner had Sergei posted a preprint of our accepted article on his website than we began to encounter problems. On August 16, a representative of the Women In Mathematics (WIM) chapter in his department at Penn State contacted him to warn that the paper might be damaging to the aspirations of impressionable young women. “As a matter of principle,” she wrote, “I support people discussing controversial matters openly … At the same time, I think it’s good to be aware of the effects.” While she was obviously able to debate the merits of our paper, she worried that other, presumably less sophisticated, readers “will just see someone wielding the authority of mathematics to support a very controversial, and potentially sexist, set of ideas…”

A few days later, she again contacted Sergei on behalf of WIM and invited him to attend a lunch that had been organized for a “frank and open discussion” about our paper. He would be allowed 15 minutes to describe and explain our results, and this short presentation would be followed by readings of prepared statements by WIM members and then an open discussion. “We promise to be friendly,” she announced, “but you should know in advance that many (most?) of us have strong disagreements with what you did.”

On September 4, Sergei sent me a weary email. “The scandal at our department,” he wrote, “shows no signs of receding.” At a faculty meeting the week before, the Department Head had explained that sometimes values such as academic freedom and free speech come into conflict with other values to which Penn State was committed. A female colleague had then instructed Sergei that he needed to admit and fight bias, adding that the belief that “women have a lesser chance to succeed in mathematics at the very top end is bias.” Sergei said he had spent “endless hours” talking to people who explained that the paper was “bad and harmful” and tried to convince him to “withdraw my name to restore peace at the department and to avoid losing whatever political capital I may still have.” Ominously, “analogies with scientific racism were made by some; I am afraid, we are likely to hear more of it in the future.”

The following day, I wrote to the three organisers of the WIM lunch and offered to address any concrete concerns they might have with our logic or conclusions or any other content. I explained that, since I was the paper’s lead author, it was not fair that my colleague should be expected to take all the heat for our findings. I added that it would still be possible to revise our article before publication. I never received a response.

Instead, on September 8, Sergei and I were ambushed by two unexpected developments.

First, the National Science Foundation wrote to Sergei requesting that acknowledgment of NSF funding be removed from our paper with immediate effect. I was astonished. I had never before heard of the NSF requesting removal of acknowledgement of funding for any reason. On the contrary, they are usually delighted to have public recognition of their support for science.

The ostensible reason for this request was that our paper was unrelated to Sergei’s funded proposal. However, a Freedom of Information request subsequently revealed that Penn State WIM administrator Diane Henderson (“Professor and Chair of the Climate and Diversity Committee”) and Nate Brown (“Professor and Associate Head for Diversity and Equity”) had secretly co-signed a letter to the NSF that same morning. “Our concern,” they explained, “is that [this] paper appears to promote pseudoscientific ideas that are detrimental to the advancement of women in science, and at odds with the values of the NSF.” Unaware of this at the time, and eager to err on the side of compromise, Sergei and I agreed to remove the acknowledgement as requested. At least, we thought, the paper was still on track to be published.

But, that same day, the Mathematical Intelligencer’s editor-in-chief Marjorie Senechal notified us that, with “deep regret,” she was rescinding her previous acceptance of our paper. “Several colleagues,” she wrote, had warned her that publication would provoke “extremely strong reactions” and there existed a “very real possibility that the right-wing media may pick this up and hype it internationally.” For the second time in a single day I was left flabbergasted. Working mathematicians are usually thrilled if even five people in the world read our latest article. Now some progressive faction was worried that a fairly straightforward logical argument about male variability might encourage the conservative press to actually read and cite a science paper?

In my 40 years of publishing research papers I had never heard of the rejection of an already-accepted paper. And so I emailed Professor Senechal. She replied that she had received no criticisms on scientific grounds and that her decision to rescind was entirely about the reaction she feared our paper would elicit. By way of further explanation, Senechal even compared our paper to the Confederate statues that had recently been removed from the courthouse lawn in Lexington, Kentucky. In the interests of setting our arguments in a more responsible context, she proposed instead that Sergei and I participate in a ‘Round Table’ discussion of our hypothesis argument, the proceedings of which the Intelligencer would publish in lieu of our paper. Her decision, we learned, enjoyed the approval of Springer, one of the world’s leading publishers of scientific books and journals. An editorial director of Springer Mathematics later apologized to me twice, in person, but did nothing to reverse the decision or to support us at the time.

So what in the world had happened at the Intelligencer? Unbeknownst to us, Amie Wilkinson, a senior professor of mathematics at the University of Chicago, had become aware of our paper and written to the journal to complain. A back-and-forth had ensued. Wilkinson then enlisted the support of her father—a psychometrician and statistician—who wrote to the Intelligencer at his daughter’s request to express his own misgivings, including his belief that “[t]his article oversimplifies the issues to the point of embarrassment.” Invited by Professor Senechal to participate in the proposed Round Table discussion, he declined, admitting to Senechal that “others are more expert on this than he is.” We discovered all this after he gave Senechal permission to forward his letter, inadvertently revealing Wilkinson’s involvement in the process (an indiscretion his daughter would later—incorrectly—blame on the Intelligencer).

I wrote polite emails directly to both Wilkinson and her father, explaining that I planned to revise the paper for resubmission elsewhere and asking for their criticisms or suggestions. (I also sent a more strongly worded, point-by-point rebuttal to her father.) Neither replied. Instead, even long after the Intelligencer rescinded acceptance of the paper, Wilkinson continued to trash both the journal and its editor-in-chief on social media, inciting her Facebook friends with the erroneous allegation that an entirely different (and more contentious) article had been accepted.

At this point, faced with career-threatening reprisals from their own departmental colleagues and the diversity committee at Penn State, as well as displeasure from the NSF, Sergei and his colleague who had done computer simulations for us withdrew their names from the research. Fortunately for me, I am now retired and rather less easily intimidated—one of the benefits of being a Vietnam combat veteran and former U.S. Army Ranger, I guess. So, I continued to revise the paper, and finally posted it on the online mathematics archives.

On October 13, a lifeline appeared. Igor Rivin, an editor at the widely respected online research journal, the New York Journal of Mathematics, got in touch with me. He had learned about the article from my erstwhile co-author, read the archived version, and asked me if I’d like to submit a newly revised draft for publication. Rivin said that Mark Steinberger, the NYJM’s editor-in-chief, was also very positive and that they were confident the paper could be refereed fairly quickly. I duly submitted a new draft (this time as the sole author) and, after a very positive referee’s report and a handful of supervised revisions, Steinberger wrote to confirm publication on November 6, 2017. Relieved that the ordeal was finally over, I forwarded the link to interested colleagues.

Three days later, however, the paper had vanished. And a few days after that, a completely different paper by different authors appeared at exactly the same page of the same volume (NYJM Volume 23, p 1641+) where mine had once been. As it turned out, Amie Wilkinson is married to Benson Farb, a member of the NYJM editorial board. Upon discovering that the journal had published my paper, Professor Farb had written a furious email to Steinberger demanding that it be deleted at once. “Rivin,” he complained, “is well-known as a person with extremist views who likes to pick fights with people via inflammatory statements.” Farb’s “father-in law…a famous statistician,” he went on, had “already poked many holes in the ridiculous paper.” My paper was “politically charged” and “pseudoscience” and “a piece of crap” and, by encouraging the NYJM to accept it, Rivin had “violat[ed] a scientific duty for purely political ends.”

Unaware of any of this, I wrote to Steinberger on November 14, to find out what had happened. I pointed out that if the deletion were permanent, it would leave me in an impossible position. I would not be able to republish anywhere else because I would be unable to sign a copyright form declaring that it had not already been published elsewhere. Steinberger replied later that day. Half his board, he explained unhappily, had told him that unless he pulled the article, they would all resign and “harass the journal” he had founded 25 years earlier “until it died.” Faced with the loss of his own scientific legacy, he had capitulated. “A publication in a dead journal,” he offered, “wouldn’t help you.”

Colleagues I spoke to were appalled. None of them had ever heard of a paper in any field being disappeared after formal publication. Rejected prior to publication? Of course. Retracted? Yes, but only after an investigation, the results of which would then be made public by way of explanation. But simply disappeared? Never. If a formally refereed and published paper can later be erased from the scientific record and replaced by a completely different article, without any discussion with the author or any announcement in the journal, what will this mean for the future of electronic journals?

Meanwhile, Professor Wilkinson had now widened her existing social media campaign against the Intelligencer to include attacks on the NYJM and its editorial staff. As recently as April of this year, she was threatening Facebook friends with ‘unfriending’ unless they severed social media ties with Rivin.

In early February, a friend and colleague suggested that I write directly to University of Chicago President Robert Zimmer to complain about the conduct of Farb and Wilkinson, both of whom are University of Chicago professors. The previous October, the conservative New York Times columnist Bret Stephens had called Zimmer “America’s Best University President.” The week after I wrote to Zimmer, the Wall Street Journal would describe Chicago as “The Free-Speech University” based upon its president’s professed commitment to the principles of free inquiry and expression. Furthermore, Professor Zimmer is a mathematician from the same department and even the same subfield as Farb and Wilkinson, the husband-wife team who had successfully suppressed my variability hypothesis research and trampled on the principles of academic liberty. Surely I would receive a sympathetic hearing there?

And so I wrote directly to Professor Zimmer, mathematician to mathematician, detailing five concrete allegations against his two colleagues. When I eventually received a formal response in late April, it was a somewhat terse official letter from the vice-provost informing me that an inquiry had found no evidence of “academic fraud” and that, consequently, “the charges have been dismissed.” But I had made no allegation of academic fraud. I had alleged “unprofessional, uncollegial, and unethical conduct damaging to my professional reputation and to the reputation of the University of Chicago.”

When I appealed the decision to the president, I received a second official letter from the vice-provost, in which he argued that Farb and Wilkinson had “exercised their academic freedom in advocating against the publication of the papers” and that their behavior had not been either “unethical or unprofessional.” A reasonable inference is that I was the one interfering in their academic freedom and not vice versa. My quarrel, the vice-provost concluded, was with the editors-in-chief who had spiked my papers, decisions for which the University of Chicago bore no responsibility. At the Free Speech University, it turns out, talk is cheap.

Over the years there has undoubtedly been significant bias and discrimination against women in mathematics and technical fields. Unfortunately, some of that still persists, even though many of us have tried hard to help turn the tide. My own efforts have included tutoring and mentoring female undergraduates, graduating female PhD students, and supporting hiring directives from deans and departmental chairs to seek out and give special consideration to female candidates. I have been invited to serve on two National Science Foundation gender and race diversity panels in Washington.

Which is to say that I understand the importance of the causes that equal opportunity activists and progressive academics are ostensibly championing. But pursuit of greater fairness and equality cannot be allowed to interfere with dispassionate academic study. No matter how unwelcome the implications of a logical argument may be, it must be allowed to stand or fall on its merits not its desirability or political utility. First Harvard, then Google, and now the editors-in-chief of two esteemed scientific journals, the National Science Foundation, and the international publisher Springer have all surrendered to demands from the radical academic Left to suppress a controversial idea. Who will be the next, and for what perceived transgression? If bullying and censorship are now to be re-described as ‘advocacy’ and ‘academic freedom,’ as the Chicago administrators would have it, they will simply replace empiricism and rational discourse as the academic instruments of choice.

Educators must practice what we preach and lead by example. In this way, we can help to foster intellectual curiosity and the discovery of fresh reasoning so compelling that it causes even the most sceptical to change their minds. But this necessarily requires us to reject censorship and open ourselves to the civil discussion of sensitive topics such as gender differences, and the variability hypothesis in particular. In 2015, the University of Chicago’s Committee on Freedom of Expression summarized the importance of this principle beautifully in a report commissioned by none other than Professor Robert Zimmer:

In a word, the University’s fundamental commitment is to the principle that debate or deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the University community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed.

#censorship #academics #academia #regressive left #academic corruption #science #article #news #archive

1 note · View note

wineanddinosaur · 3 years ago

Text

Cocktail College: How to Make the Perfect Manhattan

This episode is sponsored by Knob Creek. The right bourbon can elevate your next cocktail into an experience worth savoring. So, look for a brand that doesn’t overlook the details and sets the standard for bourbon. That’s Knob Creek. It’s truly the real deal: an authentic, classic line of American whiskeys, with proofs ranging from 100 to 120. Knob Creek is aged longer to produce a full-flavor experience as rich and deep as its history. With every drop, you notice the attention to detail Knob Creek puts into its bourbon. So, strive for a little more substance. Because, when you choose to go deeper, you’ll find so much more to appreciate.

The Manhattan borrows its name from an iconic, history-filled New York City borough. In this episode of “Cocktail College,” host Tim McKirdy chats with bartender Abigail Gullo about why she believes the Manhattan is a cocktail that lives up to its name, and shares her strategies for making it.

Gullo, the director of Bartender’s Circle, is New York City-raised and has long been influenced by her grandfather’s love for Manhattans. It’s a love that has stuck with her. McKirdy talks with Gullo about her serious penchant for rye, how the right vermouth and bitters can elevate the cocktail, and why Gullo believes the Manhattan deserves the title of America’s national cocktail.

Tune in to learn how to make the perfect Manhattan.

LISTEN ONLINE

Listen on Apple Podcasts

Listen on Spotify

MAKE ABIGAIL GULLO’S MANHATTAN

Ingredients

2 ounces rye whiskey

1/2 ounce sweet vermouth

1/2 ounce dry vermouth

1 dash Angostura bitters

1 dash orange bitters

1 dash other bitters, such as bergamot (optional)

1 lemon twist

1 brandied cocktail cherry

Directions

Combine all wet ingredients in a mixing glass.

Add ice and stir to chill.

Strain into a chilled Manhattan glass (or Nick & Nora as an alternative).

Lightly express lemon twist over the cocktail then discard.

Garnish with cocktail cherry and serve.

CHECK OUT THE CONVERSATION HERE

Tim McKirdy: Hey! This is Tim McKirdy, and welcome to VinePair’s “Cocktail College,” a weekly deep dive into classic cocktails that goes beyond the recipe with America’s best bartenders.

I’ve been thinking a lot about my relationship with the Manhattan, and the best analogy that I can come up with is that it’s like the way that some people might view jazz. I fully appreciate its merits, but I might not go as far as to call myself a fan. Now, I know that in the field of cocktail enthusiasts, I’m definitely in the minority there. Before you tarnish me as some kind of cocktail philistine, I should say that that much was true until I spoke with Abigail Gullo. Now, I’ve changed my mind. Over 45 minutes, Abigail — who is the director of Bartender’s Circle — not only eloquently distills decades of making this cocktail, she also lays out a very convincing argument for why the Manhattan should be America’s national cocktail. After hearing her case, you know how I now feel. But will you also be convinced? There’s only one way to find out.

Abigail Gullo, thank you so much for joining us today. Really looking forward to chatting about the Manhattan with you.

Abigail Gullo: I am so excited to be here. I don’t think you could have picked someone with more experience. My grandfather taught me how to make a Manhattan when I was 7 years old. So, I literally have over 40 years of experience making Manhattans.

T: Wow. That’s incredible. And of course, you personally also hail from New York originally. Is that correct?

A: Yeah. The isle of Manhattan is where I spent most of my life. I have a lot of family history there. My grandparents were both Hell’s Kitchen kids who got married at St. Michael’s Church on 34th Street. It’s still there.

THE HISTORY OF THE MANHATTAN

T: So, I’m definitely speaking with the perfect person for this drink today. The Manhattan. We’re talking about an iconic cocktail here, named after probably one of the most iconic and storied islands in the world. It dates back to the 1800s and has a ton of history. I think we would need a whole episode devoted just to exploring all of that. So, can you start by telling us what you believe to be some of the most important historical facets of this cocktail?

A: This cocktail was created in a period of time in history when Manhattan was becoming one of the most powerful plots of land in the world. You could kind of chart the shift of power in the United States from the moment they finished the Erie Canal. All of the world started entering the United States through a different way. All of the United States — the Breadbasket and everything — started traveling up the Mississippi through the Great Lakes, through New York, and ending in New York City for export. It was a real shift in power away from New Orleans, which had been the seat of power in the United States because of its location at the mouth of the Mississippi. At the same time, you had this massive wave of immigration coming from Europe and landing in New York City. The city was growing at an unprecedented rate. It was also, in true American fashion, becoming a melting pot or gumbo of different cultures and styles. You had this unique American creation — the cocktail — suddenly taking off with a new generation of bartenders. It was the first golden age of bartending, if you will. It was a time where we had celebrity bartenders, cocktails started to have names, and cocktails that started to take a different look and different shape. The cocktail, in the 1800s, would look like what an Old Fashioned looks like today. It was just bitters, sugar, spirit, and water. All of a sudden, you see the sugar — which was so plentiful and easy to get in New Orleans but maybe a little harder to get in New York — being replaced with new sweet liquors, vermouth, and fortified wines that were coming over with this new wave of immigration. I really see the Manhattan as that bridge from one generation of cocktail makers to a whole other that has lasted pretty much all the way until the 21st century. It’s an amazing cocktail to me. It still has bitters in it. To this day, you’ve got to have bitters in it. That’s a really important element. So, it’s still, by the true definition of the word, a cocktail. It uses a really uniquely defined American spirit. It also uses this ingredient that was brought over by the other side of my ancestry, my Italian relatives.

T: That’s fantastic. A couple of things there. I love how you place that as being this kind of post in terms of defining American history and also cocktail history. One of the other things that you mentioned there, that I really like, is that you say a uniquely American spirit. I would say that one of the questions that perhaps endures to this day is whether this is a rye or bourbon cocktail. I’d love to hear your thoughts on that.

A: We didn’t have definitions of what whiskey was at the time. Those original early recipes in the books call for American whiskey. That American whiskey, if you were drinking it anywhere in the mid-Atlantic region, was most definitely rye. They were very famous for the Monongahela strain of rye. Maryland had their own form of rye. There was Pennsylvania rye and, of course, New York rye was huge. If you were on the coast, you were definitely drinking rye whiskey. It’s what George Washington made. It’s what Thomas Jefferson made. There was a lot of excess grain, so a lot of farmers were using rye. Corn was deeper on the frontier land, in the Kentucky region. So, was bourbon used? Probably, if they had bourbon. They more than likely had rye. It was really Prohibition that killed off the production of rye. Then, bourbon began its resurgence. If you have a Manhattan after Prohibition, it might be made with bourbon. The way I feel about it, personally, is that I like the spiciness of the rye. I’ve always been a rye girl. I kind of got into this industry because I was so obsessed with making a real, true, and authentic Manhattan. Then, of course, I discovered the Sazerac, another great rye cocktail. I would travel to New Orleans to buy bottles of rye because I couldn’t get a good selection of rye in New York, if you could imagine that.

T: I love that as well, how you paint it. Some things we have to remember when we’re in search of historical accuracy is how much things have changed. You talk about definitions and that rye and bourbon didn’t exist as they were today. No one was talking about 51 percent back then. We’re really talking about a different era and time and different ingredients.

A: I think rye whiskey was definitely the drink of choice. In the early 21st century, when we were all cocktail nerds in New York City and rediscovering the classics, rye whiskey became very important. That led to this whole boom. Rye whiskey would have gone extinct. American rye whiskey was on the list of extinct ingredients and would have gone extinct in the 1980s if it wasn’t for the good people of New Orleans drinking their Sazeracs. Jimmy Russell from Wild Turkey told me that himself. He’s said there wouldn’t even be American rye whiskey if it wasn’t for New Orleans. They refused to say the Sazerac was a bourbon cocktail. It was a rye cocktail, and they refused to replace it. I really admire the people of New Orleans and thank them for sharing rye. The people of New York did not do that. They were like, yeah, sure, Manhattan, bourbon, whatever, fine.

T: We wouldn’t be able to have this conversation today.

A: No, we would not.

THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MARTINI AND THE MANHATTAN

T: We definitely need to tip our hats to the folks of New Orleans. There’s another part of this cocktail that I am very interested in, which is its ties to the Martini. I guess you could say the Martini is a descendant of the Manhattan. There are very similar formulas. I’d love to hear your take on that. One thing that strikes me is that we have this very strict ratio that’s almost always adhered to when it comes to the Manhattan. The Martini itself has almost become this category of cocktails. It’s a very personalized drink where you have all these different ratios. Why do you think that has remained true for the Manhattan, but it hasn’t for the Martini?

A: It’s very interesting, I don’t know if it’s a whole bunch of social sources that swirled around the Martini, like James Bond, to the fact that gin fell out of favor for vodka and it became a very easy replacement. To me, a classic Martini still looks pretty much identical to a classic Manhattan. They take up the same space in my brain. I do appreciate that people have all these different variations of the Martini. Maybe it’s because of the versatility and the wide differences that you find in different gins and vermouths. Taste is very subjective, and everyone has their own personal tastes. Of course, I’m OK with however people want to drink it. The way my grandfather taught me to make a Manhattan does not look anything like the way I make a Manhattan now. That’s the way he liked it, though, and I love and respect him for it. That’s his Manhattan. So, I respect anyone’s view of the Martini that way, too. I just think that the combination of dry vermouth, gin, orange bitters, and either a twist or an olive, can so dramatically change the drink that, of course, you’re going to start to have preferences. You’ll have your certain way and then maybe you’ll push it a little farther. If you really like it clear and cold, maybe you need a little less vermouth in that. I could totally see how that would start to happen. I also just think that the drink remained popular, while vermouth did not. If the quality of your vermouth goes down, of course you’re just going to rather have cold gin in a glass than cold gin mixed with poor-quality, spoiled vermouth. I also think the Manhattan never really had that huge popularity that the Martini did.

T: It’s interesting as well. Those are two drinks that did not, to a large extent, need resuscitating by the cocktail renaissance. They endured and remained in people’s minds, but the quality, like you said, was probably not very good. People were not chilling their vermouth. You’d find it on the back bar, dusty. These are the kind of tropes that people say about vermouth. Before we dial into the ingredients, how much do you think, in the last 20 to 30 years, the average quality of a Manhattan that you will find at a bar has improved or changed?

A: I’d like to say it improved dramatically, but I think that’s one of the things that I love about the Manhattan is that it’s kind of been steady. It has maintained its true roots throughout over 100 years of people mixing it. I fondly remember going to a family restaurant with my grandfather and being old enough to saddle up next to him at the bar. I got to order that Manhattan on the rocks with extra cherries before dinner, because I was 21, and wanted extra cherries in my drink.

HOW TO MAKE THE PERFECT MANHATTAN

T: Incredible. Actually, before we move on, can you tell us your grandfather’s recipe? I feel like it would be a shame not to hear that.

A: He liked it with bourbon. He liked it sweet. He had a sweet tooth, and he wasn’t a big drinker. It was a real treat for him to have a drink. He would like to savor it. He actually enjoyed his Manhattan on the rocks, 50/50 sweet vermouth and bourbon, with extra bitters and extra cherries.

T: Wow. That sounds very refreshing. It sounds bold, but it sounds very refreshing as well.

A: You know, I don’t hate it. It’s not my favorite, but for nostalgic reasons, sometimes I get a craving for it just like that. It’s really easy to make at home.

T: That also taps into drinks being so much more than just what they taste like. It’s their back story. It’s what it means to you personally.

A: Absolutely. I’ve become such a lover of fortified wine, too. Having good, sweet vermouth, the temptation is there, of course. Just like many bartenders love to do 50/50 Martinis, I think 50/50 Manhattans are delicious. They have their moment, and then I can have more of them, too, which, of course, is very important.

T: That’s always very helpful. So, tell us about your preference when it comes to this cocktail. Clearly, this is a drink that you have studied and enjoyed over many years. Where do you land in terms of the ratio of different ingredients?

A: I prefer two to one, with two ounces of spirit and one ounce of vermouth. I do like a little extra dash of bitters because I love bitters. I kind of like my Manhattans perfect. I like half sweet vermouth, half dry vermouth, and I enjoy it with a twist and a cherry, if I can be so bold.

T: Absolutely. That is allowed.

A: Thank you. And, of course, I like it with rye whiskey.

T: Yes. So, you mentioned rye. Of course, rye is very different. There are different mash bills now. These are things that we dial into and look into now in a way that we probably didn’t do before. When it comes to that, are you looking for something like a Kentucky style that’s 51 percent rye or higher? What about proof? Do you care about whether these are bottles that are being chill filtered or not? What’s your ideal pour?

A: I like my whiskey like I like my men: a little bit on the younger side. I like it under six years, actually. I do love to really still be able to taste a lot of the grain. I do like those spicy high ryes. Straight ryes are really good. My personal favorite is what’s coming out of the Willett Distillery in Bardstown. When I do blind tastings, I tend to choose whiskey from that region. I know a lot of people say whiskey doesn’t have a terroir. I’m like, “I know, it’s impossible.” However, I tend to like the style of whiskey that tends to come from the Bardstown region of Kentucky. The ones I pick out in blind tastings tend to come from there. Being a New Yorker, I’m also a huge fan of this new Empire Rye that we have now. We have a new category of rye. I do have an old bottle of Pikesville. I went to college in the Maryland and Virginia area, so I love that Maryland style rye, too. I can’t choose one. I love rye.

T: For this cocktail specifically, we are talking about pairing with a sweet vermouth — or sweet and dry if that’s your preference — and the boldness of sweet vermouth. You’re describing these younger styles of rye where some of the grain comes through, perhaps more than the oak and the maturation. I wonder whether that plays into that idea that the spice and rawness mixes so well with the richness of a sweet vermouth.

A: Absolutely. I think that it’s a magical combination. I really, really love it. We have so many beautiful fortified wines coming from all over Italy. I also love Spanish vermouths and Corsican. You just have such a beautiful wealth of choices now. When you think back even 15 years ago, trying to find something other than Martini & Rossi was such a challenge. Now, look at all the beautiful choices we have. Not to mention, there’s the ability to make modifications. Now, this isn’t like modifying until they aren’t Manhattans anymore, but I love all the variations of Manhattans. Martinis, again, have become this whole thing. You could slap “tini” on the end of anything, but it doesn’t look anything like a Martini. What I love about Manhattans is that there’s all these beautiful Manhattan variations that are just playing off of the theme. They’re called Little Italy, they’re called Red Hook, they’re called Greenpoint, and they’re called all these other New York neighborhoods. I have one called the Longshoreman and the Big Chief for New Orleans. I think it’s so much fun that there are all these beautiful variations now. They’re there in the family of the Manhattan, but they have their own names and their own stories.

T: That’s incredible. You mentioned, as well, your preference for the perfect Manhattan, with a mix of sweet and dry vermouth. Can you tell us a little bit more about that, for someone who has never tried that? Why do you tend towards that as your preferred pour?

A: I think I’m going back to how I love the classics. I’ve watched a lot of Nick and Nora movies, and part of the allure of going into a really nice bar and having that relationship with the bartender is, when you know what you want and you know they’ll be able to do it, and giving them this order. Since the early days in the 1800s when this drink was created, “perfect” was a way that you could have your drink. It wasn’t made perfectly. It was a Manhattan perfect, which meant half sweet vermouth, half dry vermouth. If you ordered a whiskey cocktail “improved,” it meant adding some absinthe or Maraschino liqueur. I kind of love that it’s still this really old-school way of taking your favorite classic cocktail and making a slight modification to it. Sometimes, you could even play with it. If you’re going to have a Manhattan perfect with sweet and dry vermouth, then maybe you’re going to do one dash of Angostura bitters and one dash of orange bitters, to just play with it. Maybe you have bergamot bitters. Right now, I’m obsessed with those. A little bergamot with Italian sweet vermouth is absolutely gorgeous.

T: That’s incredible. It’s a wonderful segue there onto the final ingredient here: bitters. So, that would be your preference then? You’re talking one dash of Angostura, one dash of orange, and then maybe something else that’s kind of on the front of your mind for whatever reason, at any moment.

A: That’s the fun thing about when you are grabbing a new bottle of rye or vermouth and you’re tasting it combined for the first time. You can also have this huge range of bitters to choose from that can dramatically alter the flavor profile of the drink and where it’s going to go. Even within these strict rules, there is so much variation that you could play with.

T: This being such an incredible classic, you’ve mentioned that you have these variations of it yourself. How important is it, even if you don’t have a Manhattan on your menu, to make sure that you do have a house spec for it? How important is it that everyone on your team is following this house spec in case someone arrives at the bar and doesn’t have their preferred ratio and ingredients?

A: I think it’s extremely important. I recently had an experience at a bar where I just ordered a straight-up, steakhouse-style gin Martini. It was so good the first time around. I ordered another one. The second one came, and it was clearly not made by the same bartender. It was the slightest difference in the number of olives on the pick, the dilution, and I could tell he shook it instead of stirred it. Little things. I got really sad because I really liked how it came out the first time. I liked it so much, I ordered the second one. I was really sad that I didn’t get the same bartender who made it the same way. I know I’m talking about minutiae differences. I still, of course, enjoyed the cocktail and finished it. But, as a bar manager and as a bartender, I think it’s really important that the whole team is on the same page. Even if these are what I’ve decided are the house specs and it’s really classic, of course we’ll change it on any guest request. I try to do the most popular, standard way to serve it. That is the really classic: two dashes of Angostura, one ounce of sweet vermouth, two ounces of rye whiskey, stirred with a cherry. That’s the one that gets ordered again and again. I love it. I love it when people order the same drink again. That means we did it right. We did it right the first time and we should just keep doing it that way. That’s the one that, in my experience, keeps getting repeated. Like I said, everyone has a different flavor profile and maybe some people like it differently and that’s fine. But then, at least you have a standard. It’s important to find what that standard is for your location, your bar, and your clientele, and to honor that. That’s just going to bring more people in.

T: Yeah. To your point, with the Martini example that you give, had you received that second Martini the first time around, perhaps you wouldn’t have ordered the second.

A: Yeah. I would not have.

T: You lost me at shaken.

A: I know. Oh, it’s so bad. I know they didn’t put any vermouth in it. I was like, that’s fine. I’m fine with a cold glass of gin with some olives in it when I’m sitting in a jazz club. That’s fine. That does its purpose. As my mom said, there’s no living with you now. You’re such a snob.

T: Those are the other folks that will come in. If people know how they want it made, they will ask their bartenders if they’ve gone that deep themselves. Yeah. Importance of the house spec there.

A: And that’s OK. I’ve had people come in with a business card that says this is how you need to make my Daiquiri. That’s fine. That’s coming from a place where they’ve had so many disappointing situations like I did. I feel bad for that. I joined this industry as part of a golden age of mixology. We really prided ourselves on bringing back this lost art that was really done already. We were just resetting the standard that, if you go into a bar, you should have a good cocktail. I think it’s great now that people have those expectations. However, we’re not everywhere. Know your bar. You made a good point. We’re talking all this talk about the Manhattan. If you go into a bar, and you see those dusty bottles of Martini & Rossi on the back bar, do not order a Manhattan.

T: No. Just go for the whiskey.

A: Whiskey. Some nice whiskey.

T: We’ve mentioned shaking. I would love to hear your approach to stirring. We know why we do that. I was just wondering if you have any idiosyncrasies or specific things that you dial into or teach younger bartenders. Is there a preferred method that you have that might not be the same way that everyone else does?

A: Well, people getting their drinks fast is still a huge issue. It’s how we make money and how our businesses make money. The guest expectations are that they get their drinks quickly as well. You want to get that drink out there so they can order another one. I approach it, I think most importantly, for speed. When you get a Manhattan in and there are other drinks on the order, you make that Manhattan first in the mixing glass with the ice. Then, you make all the other drinks. Then you stir it and pour it. It’s resting on the ice. It’s not getting over-diluted. You’re not agitating it. There’s no way it’s going to get over-diluted while it’s just sitting there in the ice. It is getting colder, which is what’s important, that that drink takes on that smooth, velvety, cold texture. To me, it’s really important that you get that drink built first in the glass, then make your other rounds so you have all the drinks ready at the same time. If you have time to let it sit, let it sit and get that other work done.

T: I love that. As a home bartender and complete novice here, I’m someone who enjoys drinking and making drinks but hasn’t done it professionally. That’s something I always wonder about. I’m so glad that you’ve cleared that up, whether I should be worried about dilution in that scenario. It sounds like I should not. Maybe that’s what I’m going to be doing on Friday night.

A: When you watch old movies, you know how they have a Martini or Manhattan pitcher? They make it by the pitcher for their guests. Those drinks are just sitting in the pitcher. They’re not being stirred. Sometimes they have a stir stick just to stir it around, but they’re just sitting on ice. Then, they just keep adding booze to it as the night goes on, so it doesn’t get over-diluted. They’re pouring out little Martini glasses, little Manhattan glasses. Those glasses are small. That’s why people had three-Martini lunches. The glasses used to be really, really small. You just keep it cold in a pitcher. I don’t know why I don’t see this anymore. Everyone’s doing frozen Martinis. If you’re batching for a party, there’s no reason why you can’t do a frozen Manhattan. Batch it, dilute it ahead of time, stick it in the freezer, and then when you’re ready to pour, just pour it out.

T: In that scenario, are you pre-diluting somewhat? And if you are, what would be your percentage or ratio there?

A: Yeah. When you’re adding water per cocktail, you’re usually adding about an ounce of dilution. So, if I’ve got three ounces of the Manhattan, I’ll add an ounce of water. That’s why water and ice is important, because it’s a quarter of the drink.

T: What about bitters? Should I be worried that over time, that is going to concentrate in flavor? Or you’re adding your bitters as well at that point?

A: I’ve seen arguments on both sides that the bitters bloom if they are left in. I don’t think they do. Personally, I think they taste just as good. Maybe I’ll go a little lighter because, like I said, I like my heavy bitters, and you can always add bitters later.

T: Sure. If you’re batching it, you’re batching it for an evening. We’re talking hours here. This is not something sitting in a barrel for months. That’s a whole different conversation right there.

A: Absolutely.

T: You touched upon glassware. I’d love to hear what your preference is now on glassware, the temperature of glassware and things like that. Best practices once you’ve stirred up your drink and you’re going to serve it. Talk to me about the next step.

A: There is a category of drink called a Manhattan glass. They’re a little hard to find, but they are that Nick and Nora-style cocktail. Maybe not curved. They usually have a straight edge. You can still find them a lot in thrift stores. I do keep them in the freezer. I really like having a chilled glass. You do all that work to chill this cocktail, pour it into a chilled glass, and then as the glass and drink move to room temperature, it releases even more aromatics and styles of the drink. That’s why the Sazerac is so good. It has so many aromatic elements that start to release as the glass moves to room temperature. That makes it really special.

T: And final garnish?

A: I do like a classic brandy cherry. Like I said, if I’m having it with dry, a little whisper of a twist of lemon is good. I don’t leave the lemon peel in the glass, because as soon as you leave lemon peel in the glass, it starts to impart bitterness. I’ve seen it happen within a minute. It can really change how the drink tastes with more bitterness.

T: So, just an expression over the top there. Then, the cherries. Let’s make sure they’ve seen a tree. Let’s make sure they were once living. They existed.

A: That’s kind of a standard practice now. I’m glad we’ve passed the days of those electric cherries. Although, I’ve got to tell you, one of the reasons why I started in this industry is because I started to be able to go to some fine-dining restaurants in New York City. I was very excited to spend hundreds of dollars on an amazing meal. But, I’d always start with a Manhattan, just like my grandfather would on the rare times we went out to eat. I’d be so disappointed when it would show up shaken in a V-shaped Martini glass, with a bright red cherry. I thought, “Wait a minute. This is not right.” That was my gateway into the industry. I saw that fine dining was not keeping pace with the cocktail bars that I was going to as far as innovation, freshness, ingredients, and technique. You can have all this technique in the kitchen. Still, to this day, the chefs are lauded for their technique and their celebrity. Then, bartenders are still working 15-hour shifts. What’s up with that?

THE CASE FOR THE MANHATTAN AS AMERICA’S NATIONAL COCKTAIL

T: Yes, it’s crazy. Any final thoughts on the drink? Anything about the Manhattan that we haven’t covered yet or anything else that you would like to add to this conversation?

A: I have an argument that the Manhattan is one of the greatest American cocktails. I think it often gets pushed aside as a grandpa drink or as a classic. That’s fine, but I like this variation better. I think the time and place where it was created and what it represents to the history of this country is one of those linchpins that is so important that it should really be elevated to our national cocktail.

T: Wow.

A: I know, that’s very East Coast-centric. I’d like to have a debate with somebody from New Orleans, somebody from San Francisco to talk about Pisco Punch, and someone from the Midwest to talk about the Wisconsin Old Fashioned. We can have a throw down between these four great American cocktails and see where we land.

T: Wow. New Orleans itself has the Sazerac. But if we’re talking national here, that’s lofty praise. I definitely think that you’re onto something in saying that this drink does stake many claims for being worthy of that status.

A: This cocktail was the first cocktail that went global. This was a global, viral phenomenon. There were people from all over the world who came to the United States to drink a Manhattan. That’s how well known it was. That’s incredible when you think about how, in the 1800s, you had princes from Europe and Asia coming to say, give me a Manhattan. What is America about? I can taste it in a glass. Manhattan.

T: Oh my God, I’m sold. That’s it. Sorted. America’s national drink is the Manhattan. You’ve sold me on that 100 percent. So, Abigail, thank you so much for sharing your decades of experience with the Manhattan. It’s been absolutely incredible. I loved hearing everything you’ve had to say. Before we finish, we’d definitely like to get to know yourself a little bit better and get to know your philosophies to bartending beyond this specific cocktail. So, we have some final questions to finish the show with. How does that sound?

GETTING TO KNOW ABIGAIL GULLO

A: All right. That sounds great.

T: Awesome. First one for you. What’s the first bottle, whether you want to talk about a brand or a general style of spirits, that makes it onto any one of your bar programs?

A: After everything I’ve talked about with the Sazerac and the Manhattan, I’m looking for my well rye whiskey, for sure.

T: Good. I like that you keep it on brand there. People don’t always do that, by the way. Sometimes, we might be talking about a cocktail and then suddenly they’re like, “We’ve just been talking about this for the past 45 minutes, but actually this is what I think.” So, I’m glad to hear that you keep that on brand. Which ingredient or tool do you believe is the most undervalued in a bartender’s arsenal?

A: We’ve discussed this at my bar in New Orleans, Compère Lapin, in depth. We almost all got matching tattoos. Bartenders always get tattoos of bar tools on their bodies. We thought, truly, the bar tool you use most often in a fast, high- volume cocktail bar right now would be blue tape and Sharpie.

T: 100 percent.

A: I so need a blue tape and Sharpie tattoo because keeping track of all your batches and labeling all your syrups is very important.

T: You need that on hand. Yeah. Like, you know, I’ve seen enough chef tattoos of the knife. That’s blasé by this point.

A: I know. The knife? Come on. Blue tape and sharpie. That goes for chefs, too.

T: That’s how you know you’re a pro, too, because the pros will know this is the thing that you need on hand at all times. I love it.

A: At all times.

T: Well, I want to see that tattoo when the design is ready. That sounds awesome.

A: We have color-coded tape, too, and ink, so we don’t mix up our stuff with the kitchen. The kitchen has their own. We have our own.

T: Now you’re talking. Yeah. We need that.

A: The battle continues between back of house and front of house.

T: Then, they can’t borrow yours.

A: I get so mad. That’s how I know. When I see a chef with a blue Sharpie in his jacket, I’m like, you stole that from the bar. Busted, buddy.

T: There you go. Third question for you. What’s the most important piece of advice you’ve received during your time in the industry?

A: Oh, that’s hard because I’ve gotten so much wonderful advice from so many people. I guess it’s to always remember that your uniqueness, your personality, and your spirit is the best thing that you bring to the bar every day. Make sure that’s polished and feeling good. Make sure you’re feeling good, because this industry is your whole self. So, make sure you take care of your whole self.

T: I love it. Express yourself. I’m hearing that song in my head now. If you could only visit one last bar in your life, which one would that be?

A: It’s just going to be wherever Chris Hannah is bartending. It’s not the bar, it’s the bartender. I just want to sit on the other side of the bar from Chris Hannah and have him make me a drink and talk to me.

T: Definitely go for one of his Sazeracs. Love it. Final question. If you knew that the next cocktail you drank was going to be your last, what would you order or make?

A: It would definitely be a Manhattan. It’d have to be a Manhattan. I’d make it my way, perfect. I’d make it with Willett rye. I’d definitely cheers to my grandpa Vincent and thank him for all the love, guidance, and love for the classics that he gave me.

T: I love it when things come full circle, and we’ve absolutely come full circle here, Abigail. Thank you so much. It’s been so wonderful.

A: Oh, you’re welcome. Can I take a moment to plug Bartender’s Circle?

T: Absolutely.

A: OK. So, I have been working with this group in Seattle called Bartender’s Circle. It is actually a global outreach industry education group for bartenders. It’s free to sign up at bartenderscircle.com. I��m at the point where I really want to unite us. This is such a wonderful time for those of us who have been stuck in this virtual world to really cement these virtual connections globally and share ideas and positivity. It’s a really positive place. It’s a place for us to share experiences and have a good laugh. Once a year, we get together at Seattle Cocktail Week for the Bartender’s Circle Summit. So, I really want to reach out to everyone who’s listening and have them join Bartender’s Circle with me and join our discourse so we can continue to have really fun conversations. Thank you so much for having me.

T: My pleasure. Like you say, I think the most important word there is community. Being together and sharing ideas. I think one of the most important things over the past 20 to 30 years is that a rising tide brings up all ships, as they say. Being a community, sharing knowledge, ideas, and thoughts. What could be better? Yeah, that sounds incredible. Everyone, please check out Bartender’s Circle.

A: The pandemic has made it clear that there are whole groups of people being left behind. We need to grab them and bring them up. We’ve been so privileged and blessed that this industry is taking off. I really want to leave no one behind.

T: Incredible. Thank you so much, Abigail. Thank you for the awesome work that you’re doing with that. Thank you for sitting down with us today. It’s been wonderful.

A: Thank you so much for having me. Tim.

T: Pleasure’s all mine.

If you enjoy listening to the show anywhere near as much as we enjoy making it, go ahead and hit subscribe, and please leave a rating or review wherever you get your podcasts — whether that’s Apple, Spotify, or Stitcher. And please tell your friends.

Now, for the credits. “Cocktail College” is recorded and produced in New York City by myself and Keith Beavers, VinePair’s tastings director and all-around podcast guru. Of course, I want to give a huge shout-out to everyone on the VinePair team. Too many awesome people to mention. They know who they are. I want to give some credit here to Danielle Grinberg, art director at VinePair, for designing the awesome show logo. And listen to that music. That’s a Darbi Cicci original. Finally, thank you, listener, for making it this far and for giving this whole thing a purpose. Until next time.

Ed. note: This episode has been edited for length and clarity.

The article Cocktail College: How to Make the Perfect Manhattan appeared first on VinePair.

source https://vinepair.com/cocktail-college/complete-guide-manhattan-cocktail-recipe/

0 notes

revolutionary-pirate · 7 years ago

Text

Thomas Paine to James Hutchinson - March 11th, 1781, The Account of His and John Laurens’ Voyage from America to France.

“Our setting out was favorable, until the Thursday night, which was accompanied with a circumstance that will not be easily worn from our memories. It was exceedingly dark and we were running eight or nine miles an hour till about nine at night, when from a sudden tremulous motion of the ship attended with a rushing noise, the general cry was that she had struck, and was either a ground or on a rock. The noise and the motion increased fast, but our apprehensions were in a short time abated by finding ourselves surrounded with large floating bodies of ice against which the ship was beating. This was in about latitude 45 and longitude 55 as you will see by the chart. We sounded to find our depth of water, but the lead and line were carried away. However, a second trial gave us the satisfaction of finding no bottom. The wind increased to a severe gale, and before we could take in the sails one of them was torn in two. Nothing could now be done but to lay the ship to and let her take her chance. The ice became every moment more formidable, and we began to apprehend as much danger from it as when we first supposed ourselves on ground. The sea, in whatever direction it could be seen, appeared a tumultuous assemblage of floating rolling rocks, which we could not avoid and against which there was no defence. The thundering attacks, that were every moment made by those massy bodies on the ship’s sides, seemed as if they were breaking their way in. About eleven o'clock our larboard quarter gallery was torn away. Happily for Col. Laurens he had quitted it about a minute before, and the pleasure occasioned by his escape made us for a while the less attentive to the general danger. In this situation, dark, stormy, and plunging in an unguided ship to we knew not where, we remained from nine at night till four in the morning. The wind was sufficiently high to have made our condition serious, but to be dashed every moment against a succession of icy rocks, to which there appeared no end, and of whose extent no judgment could be formed, nor yet of the magnitude of these we had still to encounter, made our situation both dangerous and uncommon. About four in the morning we began to hear the agreeable noise of the water round the sides of the ship and felt her roll easily, which to us were the welcome tokens of escape and safety. As we were near eight hours in the ice and made considerable headway, the extent of it I suppose to be about 20 miles. The next morning we were in sight of an island of ice which appeared out of the water like a mountain, how many of these we might pass in the night, or how near, the darkness prevented our knowing.

A few days after this, as you will see by the chart, we had a glorious breeze which carried us from nine to twelve miles an hour for seven days; on the last of which we saw to sail and chased; but finding each of them nearly as large as the alliance we stood our course, and they in their turn chased us, and as they sailed very unequally we expected to reduce the affair to single actions, but this the foremost prudently declined by discontinuing the chase. All the passengers turned out as marines of whom Col. Laurens had the command.

The next day we again saw two sail and chased, one was a large ship the other a cutter, and as we approached we perceived the large one to be under the command of the smaller, by which we concluded it was her prize. When we got within a league, the smaller one quitted and stood different course. We bore away for her, and she not being able to get off, lay to and waited our coming. She proved to be a Scotch cutter of ten guns, Russel, Commander, and eight days from Glasgow. About two hours before we appeared in sight she had fallen in with the above ship, an unarmed Venetian having not a single gun mounted either for defence or offence, and bound from London to Venice; which, contrary to every principle of justice, honor, or ability, she had made a capture of, put the crew in irons and was convoying her to Glasgow. What pretence they might have formed to support the capture is not easy to guess at. Her cargo was pepper, indigo, glass bottles, and other like articles of merchandise, without a single thing contraband. Capt. Barry put an officer aboard the Venetian for that night to take charge of her till the circumstances could be enquired into, and took the Captain of the Venetian, his son and the pilot on board the Alliance. They supped with us in the cabin, and their joy at being released from their piratical captors seemed beyond their power to express. The son, an agreeable looking youth, crossed his hands and pointed to his ankles to make us understand he had been in irons, and the father, an elderly man of a good appearance, showed a countenance that sparkled with the happiness of his heart, though at that time he could not be affected by anything but a change of treatment and an idea of personal safety.

The next day, when his papers had been examined, the matter enquired into and consulted on, it was the unanimous opinion of the Captain and officers, that the captivation by the cutter was contrary to the rights of neutral nations and could be held in no other light than an act of Piracy, and that the justice of America, and the honor of her flag, made it a duty incumbent on her officers to put the much injured Venetian in possession of his property, and restore him to the command of his vessel, without accepting either recompense or salvage. The opportunity of doing an act of humanity like this, must, to every mind capable of enjoying the chief of human pleasures, that of relieving insulted distress, be esteemed preferable to the richest prize that could have been taken. The finding her in the possession of an enemy might have afforded a ground for detaining her, but as no right can arise out of an original wrong, therefore it became a duty to consider the merits and not the pretenses of the case. Had the opinion of the officers been for detaining her, Col. Laurens, who formed an early judgment of the matter, and was warmly affected by the injuries done to the Venetian, would, from the double motives of humanity and honor, have become their advocate; but as no difficulty arose when the question was proposed by the Captain the occasion of argument was superseded. A certificate was given the Venetian of the case we found him in, and others received from him, which when published will do honor to the new constellation.”

I’ve posted about the ‘Pirate’ encounter before, but it’s nice to see a more in-depth, first-hand account of what went down at the time. It was also nice to see a full description of the night of the iceberg incident. Also, the near-miss with a battle against the ships they’d spotted, considered chasing, but then had to flee from amuses me. And the fact that Laurens had some command of the marines on the ship? That was news to me. One of my favorite parts, though, has to be how Laurens was 100% ready, right from the get-go, to argue on the Venetians’ behalf should the need have arisen because he felt so strongly about their case.

#John Laurens #aides-de-camp #Thomas Paine #John Barry #Continental Navy #Rather than reiterate my points on the significance of the Pirates to Barry I'll reblog my old post about it #i was not looking for this but i found it and am entirely pleased #But i got on the internet to get my sources so i could work on my paper without the internet to distract me #but then the internet distracted me in the process of getting my sources by allowing me to accidentally stumble upon a published collection #that contained the Robert Morris papers and the letter from Paine to Morris about his trip to France with Laurens #and then it spiraled out of control from there and i found this #I'll post the other stuff in the morning

43 notes · View notes

davidthetraveler · 4 years ago

Note

Hey! Your comments were what motivated me to finish my first fic (these nightmares always hang on past the dream) and I kinda said something about another in the same universe during hospitalisation time, so now that I have some motivation, I'm asking you for something about it: I don't know if I should change Dee's name from Ethan to Janus, so could you please tell me which one you prefer. Thank you for your support!

Hey, sorry for taking so long to get to this. I’ve been staying off Tumblr lately for...personal reasons. Plus I had to think about what my answer to your query would be.

The thing is, I know exactly where you’re coming from with this dilemma. There’s been a few of my own stories that I wrote before “Putting Others First” that feature an idea of what Deceit’s real name was. And I too have wondered about those since the new episode, when every single one of them was dashed (I really did not see Janus coming. It never even crossed my mind.)

So then, what to do about it?

I can honestly see the merit in both stances. On the one hand, it is your story, and if you’re partial to that name for Deceit, then you should feel okay keeping it. But on the other hand, it does make some sense to try and stick to established canon, even retroactively, and anyone who decides to do so should feel okay if they want to.

I personally am leaving all of my completed stories with a different name for Deceit unchanged, a sort of testament to what we theorized before the reveal. But in every story that’s not finished or published, I will be changing his name to Janus to match with canon.

Yours is somewhat of a special case. Since the actual work is complete, though now will have a sequel, in a way the story is both finished and unfinished, so either argument could be made for it. Personally, I would switch it over, since I would count the story as incomplete, even if the actual work is.

But that’s just what I would do if it were my story. In the end, it comes down to whether you want to stick with Ethan out of attachment to the old name theory or if you want to switch to Janus to stay close to canon. Either way, it’ll be your choice to make, and no one else’s.

And whichever you decide to go with, I support you.

#David's Answers

0 notes

blackwoolncrown · 8 years ago

Text

I literally have to keep myself from hating people so much when shit like that goes down, I don’t mind that they disagree, I mind that I explicitly state precisely what kind of person I’m talking about in my posts and a bunch of asshats always make pointless reaches to project whatever their prefab argument is on my post so they can be a dick. I am not talking about people who just ‘disagree’ with SJ posts. I’m talking about people whose blogs are devoid of actual analysis, experience or intellectual merit who literally just go around reblogging SJ posts that have been passed down through their shitty little friends so they can just go ‘OP is an idiot/lol SJWs are so lame/wow this post gave me cancer’

There are so many people who do just that and only that. They might specifically be anti-feminism, anti-...people-caring-about-racism, or whatever, or just anti-SJ in general, but the thing is they have NO actual investment in the improvement of relationships between humans. They have NO actual investment in actually bettering understanding between two parties. All they want to do is laugh at people they don’t agree with, and that’s easiest to do by belittling their point and positioning themselves as if every SJ argument is ~soooo ridiculous~. Meanwhile, their entire blog is 90% reblogs with very little original content, because without a fall boy, they have nothing funny to say. Without anyone to kick, they don’t have an argument to stand on. Interestingly enough, since the once-a-year-flood-of-douchebags has flown in to my mentions, I’ve been playing with what they sound like these days and sadly they’re exactly the same. Any argument that touches on a fact of intersectional bigotry that they, personally, have never experienced, gets immediately thrown out as ludicrous. Words fail me when I attempt to describe just how podunk and uneducated it looks for a person to go WELL THAT SURE IS DUMB when it’s simply clear that it’s *new* to them. These are adults whose first reaction to something they don’t understand is THIS IS STUPID instead of just “I don’t get it”. Also, not surprised at the amount of men still using the 4chanian logical fallacy where they go ‘oh you’re mad now haha I win’. Someone yesterday used that one and like, for those who haven’t dealt with it, it’s basically them taking the position that a discussion online is a Battle Of No Feelings and the first person to show emotion is the loser.

So, not only is that not what arguments or debates are about, but that’s also always 100% a front on their part. For instance, a guy yesterday landed on my dash after his lengthy back and forth with a mutual of mine about how, according to him, protesters in the streets deserved to get hit by his car because they were blocking traffic.

For the record, he admitted that he had never been stuck in traffic due to a protest. For the record, as far as I can remember on her behalf, both myself and my mutual have either been in traffic that simply detoured from a protest (Wow! You mean you don’t HAVE to run people over?), and I have been in protests where traffic was being directed around.

So first of all the entire situation his angry argument was based on was purely hypothetical. Second of all his understanding of how traffic and protests interact is uneducated because he’s either never actually been in one,driven up to one, or seen how traffic moves around them, and instead of ASKING what happens, this guy clearly just sat up in his head concocting a fantasy of driving up to one and being late for work, one that filled him with so much anger that he decided to write and DEFEND why he figured protesters deserved to get hurt and or die. But his tactic, once I dealt with him, was ‘haha ur mad’. And he’s not? Being so frustrated by imaginary traffic that you advocate vehicular homicide is not a neutral position. But this comes down to men being awful. They really honestly feel that their misanthropy is neutral. Hate is, I regret to inform you all, a feeling. And it’s hate and confusion that motivates people to constantly leech on to arguments aimed at bettering the world and constantly derailing them with pedantry, apathy, and just plain chuckefuck bullshittery. I don’t reblog even most of where my posts end up, but it’s been exhausting seeing how many people specifically dance around my point in order to build a nice strawman, when they could have just as easily not said anything if they didn’t agree. There’s nothing wrong with just letting someone be ‘wrong’ in your opinion if it’s not literally something that endangers people. People like this think they are doing something very noble by vigilantly attacking every slightly-different-and-more-empathetic-than-theirs stance on tumblr dot com, but the true reality is that it is an addiction.

Arguing with people on the internet feels very good- so good that people enjoy watching it. Any time I do bother getting into discourse, someone ALWAYS sends me a congratulatory ask specifically talking about how GOOD they feel seeing it. It’s vicarious righteous anger. And it’s the same way those asshats feel, loading their blogs up with snarky one-line disses at the end of a feminist post they don’t like, or an anti-conservative post they don’t like, or a post about toxic masculinity they don’t like. They didn’t have anything to say, but it feels good to be able to shoot another arrow into your enemy, doesn’t it? And people are chasing that feeling. That’s why I don’t like when I get compliments on discourse, and that’s why people will specifically twist my VERY simple fucking points in order to get a jab in. It’s sad, it’s really, really sad.

#mine

6 notes · View notes

santamonicayachtclub · 8 years ago

Text

on curation, validation, and prioritization in fandom

Fandom is legion.

None of us “do” fandom the same way as everyone else, and none of us get all the same things out of it as everyone else. It’s okay to listen to discussions and not partake. It’s okay if fandom is a place for you to decompress and take time for yourself. It’s just as valid to view diversity analysis as your fandom calling as it is to view drawing fanart as your fandom calling. It’s okay to not feel comfortable participating in certain parts of fandom. It’s okay to have a finite amount of energy. Something to bear in mind is that this probably indicates you also lack the energy to complain about negativity and, in effect, contribute to it yourself. This is what it means to curate your experience. Preserving your energy and your need for self-care is never invalid, but neither should it occur as a result of cutting down others. If you’ve noticed yourself finding certain topics uncomfortable or frustrating, this might be a good opportunity to examine why POC and LGBT+ fans discussing GMM from a social justice perspective makes you feel that way. Bottom line, no one is being forced to perform fandom to anyone’s specifications. Cultivating your own experience need not occur at the expense of putting down people who engage with fandom differently than you.

And I will say...I've been here a little over a month and most of the time I have no idea who anyone is talking about. I work with immigrant families full time and have a side hustle doing ESL tutoring and am lowkey trying to keep up with my book club and get some academic stuff published without popping a vein. I have no idea who the original post was about or who wrote what fic with what thing that’s possibly objectionable. I’m just here to be America’s Next Top Model.

On that note, I realize the hoary old chestnut that is the “depiction isn't endorsement” argument has been thoroughly cracked open several times, I really do. Exploring gritty, uncomfortable topics is something people do in every realm of media, and by no means indicates a creator’s desire to partake in the same subject matter in reality. Creation is fueled by everything from escapism to therapeutic expression to sublimation of emotion to just plain curiosity.

There's merit to the concept of self-curation, but it also involves work on both ends. Creators have been stepping up their tagging game considerably in recent years, and there’s been an uptick in author’s notes that allow readers to click to the end of a fic and read detailed synopses of potentially triggering contents. Fanvid makers have been doing the same, which allows viewers to skip over certain segments of their vids. In many ways, fandom has been making great strides towards protecting its participants. On the other hand, there will always be creators who opt not to engage in these practices, just as there will always be fanworks that repel certain fans. Tailoring your dash by blocking and unfollowing won't stop these works from being posted or their creators’ accounts from existing. Plenty of fanwork creators use their works to sublimate trauma or mental illness or to explore the deconstruction of tropes typically considered trite or problematic. Saying this work shouldn't exist full stop is concerning and often leads down the slippery slope of implying authors should be obligated to divulge personal information in order to prove they have the right “credentials” to be writing certain subjects.

Continuing along that topic, it’s impossible to know for certain the mental illnesses, survivor statuses, and ethnic background of every other person in fandom, let alone how those things might manifest or how each individual person might cope with them. It’s concerning to me that there’s been a spike in individual fans declaring in very broad strokes which fanworks pass muster and which should be scrubbed from existence, based on their own status as a member of a given group. There are certainly occasions where this is valid and necessary (e.g., calling out a fanwork that is blatantly racist or transphobic) There are also occasions where such declarations set up a false dichotomy in which there’s a right way and a wrong way to “do” fandom if you are a member of this group, whether it be one’s status as a POC, a sexual assault survivor, LGBT+, etc. This is erasure of those who share the same trait(s) but have a completely different perspective.

POC, survivors, LGBT+, and mentally ill fans all have and are continuing to both consume and create problematic things. Many of them may not feel comfortable disclosing personal information online for a variety of reasons. Someone repulsed by BDSM fic might have a weakness for daddy kink. Someone might view a given fic's content as gratuitous while another person might see it as nuanced and sensitively portrayed. There are few absolutes in fandom and trying to force them into existence is a headache waiting to happen.

Trying to stop the existence of every fanwork you find problematic will leave you exhausted, frustrated, and burned out. For every person crusading against XYZ, there will always be another person transforming into a “challenge accepted” meme circa 2010 and eagerly producing more XYZ. That isn’t to say there’s no conversation to be had about the portrayal and treatment of certain tropes and concepts in fandom, because there absolutely is. At the same time, there has to be a moment where you realize, however difficult it may be, that sometimes it’s necessary to take a step back and protect yourself.

If you’re unsure about clicking on a read more tag to see someone’s art or clicking on a fic that hasn’t been tagged specifically enough for your comfort, send the creator a message asking about the content. This can be anxiety-inducing, so an alternative is to have a vetting squad, a group of trusted friends you can turn to and ask, "hey, does anyone know if SassySweaterRhett’s fic contains D/s?" or "I just got added by chinchillinwithchase, does anyone know what kind of stuff they post?" If you notice a fic with minimal tags that the author has labeled Choose Not To Warn, maybe post a quick "hey, has anyone read this and if so what can I expect?" to your blog before clicking on it.

Fandom will never be a tailor-made safe space for everyone who enters it. But we can try to promote consistency. When in doubt, using too many tags is often better than using too few. Knowing your own limits can be a tedious process that often involves stumbling across content you immediately wish you hadn’t. My own triggers and squicks are almost all atypical and not likely to be covered by anyone's tags. I’ve had a number of rude awakenings, the vast majority of them from back in the day when it was considered courteous if you included content warnings at all.

That said.

It is so, so hard to try and make a space for yourself and your unique voice in fandom only to then be told fandom doesn’t want to hear it. As I said earlier, curation works both ways. One person’s expression is as valid as any other’s unless hate speech, abuse, doxxing, etc. enter the picture. And to be honest, some of the anon messages I’ve seen lately have veered pretty unequivocally over the line. Attacking someone for expressing an opinion by telling them to die or kill themself is never, ever appropriate no matter how much you disagree with what they're posting. This is a great example of when it might behoove one to add a few new terms to one’s blacklist and practice the gentle art of not being an asshole. Dialogue, discussion, and even arguments are bound to happen, and should happen in any venue that involves a a group of people with shared interests but not a shared brain. There is no reason it should ever devolve into personal attacks.

tl:dr Fandom is a tangled web when it comes to trying to walk the tightrope between self-expression and self-preservation and it would be great if we could figure it out.

#gmm diversity #i guess #long post #unsure how to tag this #i just have a lot of feelings #eva screaming into the void again

30 notes · View notes

ripplestitchskein · 8 years ago

Text

I have a lot of Anons in my inbox right now. Far too many to answer individually so blanket statements for Nonnie's: Thank you for your support lovelies who sent me nice things or further examples (like Liam and the navy thing, Regina getting credit for Neverland etc). I'm glad that I'm helping a portion of the fandom who maybe aren't seeing their feelings represented elsewhere. I really do appreciate it. I know it's very popular to attack those who are displeased and cast them as ungrateful or whining or pointlessly worrying so seeing a different perspective can help when you just aren't as excited and see things from a different point of view beyond the surface shiny things that don't have meaning if they aren't backed up in the overall story. This show and the creators are very rage inducing and frustrating if you are a fan of Hook, and just want him to get a fraction of the same things other characters receive. Did I give more credence to one line in one interview than is probably deserved? Maybe, I can see the validity of some of the counter arguments, but for ME it was just another piece of evidence from several seasons of disregard both on the show and on Twitter/interviews. My view of the motivations behind those things are just my opinion for why they do it. So it's nice of you guys to let me know that IM not alone either. Thank you. For the other Anons that might be arguing against my POV, I'm willing to discuss it if you provide specific examples that aren't just the same trite "of course they love Hook", "of course they wouldn't do that". I'm willing to listen but so far all I'm seeing are platitudes and the party line in my inbox. My issue wasn't with that one statement alone, my issue was with that one statement compounded on the numerous things I listed, which it seems you conveniently ignored and offered no counter examples to? If you are only going to focus on me getting angry about a line in an interview sure that seems out of proportion, but you are deliberately ignoring literally everything else I said and cited from the show. I think people assume motivations a lot of the time, that I only want the show to be about Hook or CS, or put it down to a lack of understanding about how this works or that works, but I can assure you I understand perfectly. Beneath my emotional exterior I consider myself a pretty intelligent person who goes out of her way to understand a lot of things and who makes sure she's not letting emotion always override logic, who is very cognizant of her shortfalls and who knows she doesn't always look at things detached from emotion, and who on the whole, looking at Hook's storylines, even during relatively good seasons like S3 or S5, and the way he is treated in interviews and by the creators on their social media, feels like her viewpoint has merit. I'm not ignoring the good things in favor of the bad. I've acknowledged there are a lot of beautiful moments and squee worthy things, I am the biggest fan of Dark Hook that exists and I have spent many hours writing meta to support this show and some of their decisions. I have defended it over pages and pages and calmed my fair share of fears and given my fair share of justifications. I'm simply stating, especially after 6A, the bad far outweighs the good and that the things I mentioned are not present for any other character, excepting maybe Emma who has gotten her fair share of neglect as well. I've even in the past considered looking at datapoints, screentime, scene breakdowns, storyline focus counts, character specific tweets (a little harder since he deletes them), frequency mentions in interviews, etc but at this point who cares, who has the time? Why spend any more effort on this show defending myself to people who don't matter? If you look at my blog as a whole, from S3 when I started it until now you will see that this isn't just an all of a sudden out of nowhere flip to anger, I loved this show, a lot. It's actually really interesting seeing the progression. At the end of the day you believe what you believe, I believe what I believe and I'll continue to post how I feel and continue to detach from this show. As always I tag everything appropriately, I don't force my views on others, to see them you have to be specifically looking for them in negativity tags since I don't tag mains, or following me. I don't send anon hate, I manage my dash. I do what I'm supposed to in order to make sure that my experience is my experience and I'm not forcing it in others. If you get upset about what I'm writing here that's on you, you don't have to follow me or those tags to read it.

#ouat negativity #ouat spoilers for ts #blog business

12 notes · View notes

lizardlicks · 8 years ago

Note

I see you on the front lines when it comes to fighting antis and callout culture, and I applaud you for that, cuz not many people on this site are willing to risk themselves to the tumblr jackals like you are, just to make sure that artists have creative liberty. But, there's a question that has been in the back of my mind for some time now, and I need it cleared up, cuz I see people like you and then people who bring up legitimate arguments against your stance, and I have to ask (1)

Doesn't the law state that drawn/fictional characters who are minors and drawn in sexual situations is still considered a form of pedophilia/ distribution of pedophilia? I'm not hating on you, this is a legitimate question I've had for a while and I want to support people like you for standing up for creative liberty but with the arguments other people bring up on my dash it gets very confusing very quick and I feel like I'm being pulled in two different directions on the moral fence (final)

The reason I don’t address it is because several people much smarter than me, including at least three actual lawyers that I know of, have already addressed it. The law itself is vaguely worded, stating that such produced work has to be “obscene” (note, what obscene means is never specified and left up to individual judges to interpret) and devoid of all artistic merit. Both those things are subjective, and extremely difficult to prove in court, and in several cases it was ruled to be unconstitutional. In the case that I know of in which a person was prosecuted for such work, they were an already convicted criminal in jail, and it was tacked on after they were brought back in for distributing contraband (which is an entirely different conversation full of lovely side tidbits about the prison industrial complex and the purposeful failures of our current prison systems to rehabilitate inmates as targeting them is an easy supply of free/cheap labor, and wheeeeee).

Basically, you’d have to producing photo-realistic pictures of a character who could conceivably be recognizable as an actual existing person who is under age. But that’s my understanding of it, which is probably lacking several layers of nuance because I’m not a lawyer. When in doubt, ask someone who’s been trained in the field; its a really bad idea to get your legal advise from teenagers on tumblr dot com.

(Especially since the website they like to refer back to as their “source” is an advertising website for convincing people they have a litigation claim and hooking them up with attorneys. It says right on there that the people who run the site are not themselves lawyers and their interpretations of law can not be upheld in court.)

#Anonymous

6 notes · View notes

spinnerprincess · 8 years ago

Text

featuring: a long-winded post about the current very bad status of ace stuff

the place i’m at with ace shit right now is so frustrating to me. ace people are in suuuuuch a horrible place at the moment. i’m not even necessarily talking about acephobia or whatever the latest buzzword is because it doesn’t present itself the way that which we would call homophobia or biphobia does?

here’s the deal. the current status of “ace discourse” has separated ace people out into one of two categories: loud, awful ace people with opinions who keep talking about them, and quiet ace people who would rather just live their lives without ace discourse at this point

so let’s talk about category one first. there has become a cacophony around ace people and truthfully some it is merited. the ace community has long suffered from a variety of issues when it comes to interacting with other marginalized communities.

for example, a large number of ace people doesn’t acknowledge how asexuality interacts with poc, since there is such a history of cultural erasure of poc sexuality, or ascribing hypersexuality to poc, and so on. understandably a lot of poc are uncomfortable with asexuality applied to poc, and a lot of poc who are ace are uncomfortable with the community at large for ignoring how racism may have influenced their identification. there are problems of people enforcing the split attraction model as the end-all-be-all of sexuality models, and that can make a lot of people (both ace and not ace) uncomfortable. there are other problems too, that’s just a couple that I can think of offhand

but the thing about nearly all of that? i mean that’s... that’s fucking everywhere tbh. that’s in nearly every marginalized community. gay poc are still fighting for visibility in their community. many lesbian women talk about how dating a bi woman would be gross to them. many bi people are terfs or just plain transphobes.

these are reasons that people often point to when they want to look down upon certain communities. often if somebody who isn’t a lesbian wants to put down the lesbian community, maybe they’ll say, “i hate lesbians, they’re terrible to trans women so they’re pointless.” “well, gay men mock black women all the time, why would I care about them.”

not fun, right? but still most people seem to see the bigger picture. every community has its own problems and every community, in my experience, has plenty of people supporting these gross attitudes, but also many people who fight to make their community a better place when they can. a lot of people realize this. a lot of people see the value in the gay community, see the people fighting back against internal racism, etc.

what’s different these days with people’s attitudes towards the ace community is that for whatever reason there is an overwhelming amount of people who don’t see anything but these downsides. a lot of them seem to pick one particular trait and stick to it, like, “ace people are intruding on lgbt spaces,” and for that reason, they are vehemently against our entire existence (and often imply that we’re fakes).

this is compounded by the fact that there are a lot of ace people who are loud and talk back. which, yes, okay, that’s what people need to do! when terfs speak up, trans people fight back! when people say ace people can’t identify as q****, it’s okay to clarify that yeah, we’ve undergone a lot of those experiences, and we can! when people say ace people sexualize others, it’s important to fight back and talk about the ways many asexuality-related things just involve non-sexual ideas of consent. etc, etc.

but so many ace people who fight back never acknowledge that they could be wrong. not even necessarily about the statement they’re fighting - about anything.

I’m talking about ace people who DO believe that the split attraction model is infallible (and thus that it should be ascribed to everybody, forever), and won’t be swayed from it. I’m talking about ace people who refuse to admit to racism in the community. i’m talking about ace people who enter conversations that aren’t about them - for example a straight ace person talking over gay people over a specfically gay topic.

and of course I see WHY it happens. they’re the kind of people who get so much criticism that they have to stand up and ignore all of it just to stay upright. but god that doesn’t make it right.

that’s where the spin cycle starts: so many people find it necessary to criticize ace people, specifically, for their internal community problems. and then so many loud, awful ace people refuse to discuss those internal community problems because they’re too busy defending their right to exist in the first place to realize that some of the criticism is valid. and then the haters have more reason to hate, and it goes on and on.

it fucking makes me sick some days.

this causes even MORE problems though, because it’s gotten so bad that ace people who don’t care about this shit have just... gone into hiding. kind of including me?? the fact that I’m ace gets buried under my profile a lot of the time. and it’s gotten worse in recent years, I used to feel comfortable reblogging ace posts, but I really don’t any more.

I’m so fucking scared of getting involved in this discourse. I already see it just pop up on my dash from time to time. “good morning, did you want to have your sexuality invalidated by a random seemingly cool person you followed 3 weeks ago for breakfast?” it’s pervasive and scary. it’s constant. i’m constantly followed by the fear that somebody I’ve just met will spontaneously decide to show the anti-ace opinions they were hiding and fuck with my head.

and sometimes it’s not even the criticizing non-ace person that I’m scared of. sometimes there’s a complete asshole of an ace person fighting, and they’re wrong, and they’re being terrible to the OP, but I don’t want to get involved and get harassed by them or their followers for just trying to say, “hey, you’re right, but they’re right too.” they’re nearly always backed by a network of equally terrifying aggressive ace types.

meanwhile, reddit has moved on a little from “triggered” as the tumblr identifying word and now they’re using “acephobia.”

meanwhile, since ace people who aren’t the literal worst feel uncomfortable voicing their opinions in their own goddamn community, the voices of ace people who refuse to respond to internal criticism dominate.

meanwhile, where other communities are often seen in shades of gray with some people bad and some people kind and some people somewhere in between, the ace community is either seen as “good or bad no in between” or just plain “bad.”

to some extent i realize i contribute by not talking about ace discourse. but it’s so tiring. so many arguments are the same. so many statements outright invalidate my experiences, from both inside and outside. so much of asexuality feels like a joke to other people, or a sin. so many people talk about it like it’s nbd or hasn’t faced discrimination. many don’t understand it at all. many feel outright threatened by ace people. i don’t know why. well no I know why they might be threatened by ace people, i don’t know why they feel threatened by asexuality, to be more accurate.

anyway sorry i’m not strong enough to even be part of the ace community, i’m going to crawl back into my shell with the 2-3 ace people that are my friends and hide from the rest of the world again now

8 notes · View notes

marymosley · 4 years ago

Text

Slander or Opinion? Claims Of Racism and Defamation Fly After Education Council Member Is Seen Bouncing Black Child On Lap

A New York City education council meeting recent attracted national attention after one member of the council (and its past President), Robin Broshi, accused another member, Thomas Wrocklage, of racism after he was seen in a zoom meeting bouncing a black child on his lap. The video below is rather breathtaking but the incident has led to countervailing claims of racism and slander. As if often the case, we tend to jump on any novel torts claims and this is a good example of the tension between opinion and slander, particularly in such overheated (indeed radioactive) moments in public debates. It is unfortunately an increasingly common legal question in today’s rage-filled politics. The video of his meeting has now been shown throughout the world. However, it has some interesting elements as a pedagogical tool for understanding the underlying applicability of tort liability, or lack thereof.

THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The entire 4-hour council meeting is available but here are the highlights. It began with references to a prior “ugly” meeting and a call for more civil discourse by President Maud Maron who notes that “it is possible to condemn racism and at the same time to extend grace and compassion to the people who disappoint you.” That hope however is quickly dashed whenCouncil member Eric Goldberg denounces her “hollow” statement as “deny[ing her] culpability in creating an environment of division and divisiveness.”

That is when Broshi enters with a bang and refers to a letter campaign and adds:

“a member of this council was racist and I did nothing and I’m ashamed I did nothing and I can sit here during a public meeting and say I’m sorry, I made a mistake, I didn’t speak out verbally when multiple times during the meeting one of the members engaged in behavior that made me ache and hurt for the non-white people that were logged in.”

With that, the meeting was off to the races with allegations of racism and slander.

Ironically, it is Broshi who is then accused by Council Vice-President Edward Irizarry. Irizarry states:

“You, in your comfortable white world can tell us about how we ought to reach down and help the poor Latino, and help the poor black, condescendingly look at us as though we are inferior. Because never, do I see anyone, or any of these advocates, really in communion with these poor students that are not getting the education that they deserve… We don’t want handouts… Cosmetic diversity, that’s what you’re looking for, you’re not looking for true change. You’re not looking to really educate all of the people of this district.”

Broshi then denounces her own white supremacy:

“I want to apologize to you. I want to acknowledge that calling out the one vote was an example of white privilege and it was an example of trying to silence the legitimacy of your space on this council . . . . There’s work — everyone has work to do and I have work to do. I have 40 plus years of white supremacy I need to undo and that was unfair of me to make that point and I don’t want to silence your voice, and your voice has merit, Edward.”

It is then that it is clear that Wrocklage was being referenced as a racist earlier and denies the allegation but Broshi again refers to his “racist behavior” and his example of “white people exhibiting their power over people of color.” She further notes “if you won’t even read a book about white fragility . . . I can’t sit here in a working business meeting and educate you.” (This issue of the book was raised repeatedly: “Tom! I’ve explained it to you! You can Google, you could read a book!”. “Read Ibram X. Kendi! Read White Fragility! Read How to Talk to White People… It is not my job to educate you! You’re an educated white man! And you could read a book! And you can educate yourself!”).

Well you get the idea, but here is a clip:

youtube

This is the relevant transcript:

Morden: During our last meeting you were talking about someone’s friend on someone’s lap when there were actual kids who were saying there are racist acts in your school! Sad! You are sad! But today you want to talk about…

Broshi: Ben!…It hurts people when they see a white man bouncing a brown baby on their lap and they don’t know the context! That is harmful! It makes people cry! It makes people log out of our meeting! They don’t come here! They don’t come to our meetings! And they give me a hard time because I’m not vocal enough! And I’m not trying to be a martyr! I’m trying to illustrate to you that you think I’m a f**k–excuse me–you think I’m a social justice warrior! And you think I’m being patronizing and I’m getting pressure for not being enough of an advocate! And I take that to heart and that hurts me! And I have to learn to be a better white person!

Wrocklage: I would like to know before this meeting adjourns how having my friend’s nephew on my lap was hurtful to people and was racist. Can you please explain?

Broshi: Tom! I’ve explained it to you! You can Google–you can read a book! Read [inaudible]! Read White Fragility! Read How to Talk to White People! It’s not my job to educate you! You’re an educated white man! You could read a book and you could learn about it yourself!

Others then join in on attacking Wrocklage for having a black child on his lap. Emily Hellstrom joins in attacking Wrocklage and demands an apology:

“You had a smirk and a grin on your face when you pulled that child in… you in a joking tone, said ‘my living room is integrated right now’… as if, as if, the hundreds of years of first slavery and then segregation were nothing, would go poof, because you happened to have a black friend… So the fact that—and perhaps you didn’t intend it to be racist—and that does not matter, actually, was racist… You need to look deep inside and say ‘wow, I hurt a lot of people.’ Whether you intended to or not, you did.”

Wrocklage insisted “I was also laughing at the absurdity of the cognitive dissonance of people like you. People exactly like you, who are telling people of colour how they should feel. How absurd that is.”

However, Council member Shino Tanikawa also demanded an apology from Wrocklage:

“If you’re not willing to read then you’re not doing the work. And this is work we all have to do. And you can disagree with people but this is not an ideological difference. This is how black and indigenous people of color see the world. And it’s not for you and me—East Asian affluent person–to deny that reality. And we have to get on board, we have to understand what these people are telling us, we have to do the work, we have to get uncomfortable. But I don’t see some of you willing to do that uncomfortable work.

…When somebody tells you that you did something wrong, the first thing to do is reflect on that and then apologize, even if you don’t agree, you apologize… That is what grown-ups do.”

That is just a part of the meeting, but it raises a common question for meetings and protests where such allegations fly of racism and other forms of bias.

PRIVATE CITIZEN OR PUBLIC FIGURE?

The first step is to determine the status of these council members. Until this meeting became an international sensation, none of these individuals were high visibility individuals. However, they are council members who appear at public meetings, including current or former officers of the council. A claim could be made that they are all at least limited public figures, if not full public figures, due to their thrusting themselves into the public eye. There is however a claim to be made that participating in such public meetings should not cause a private citizen to trigger the higher burdens of being a public figure. This video has gone viral but, until it did so, this was a small educational council meeting with an open mike. That threshold issue could create some very interesting arguments over the tipping point for public figures.

This issue will turn on Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 352 (1974) and its progeny of cases. The Supreme Court has held that public figure status applies when someone “thrust[s] himself into the vortex of [the] public issue [and] engage[s] the public’s attention in an attempt to influence its outcome.” A limited-purpose public figure status applies if someone voluntarily “draw[s] attention to himself” or allows himself to become part of a controversy “as a fulcrum to create public discussion.” Wolston v. Reader’s Digest Association, 443 U.S. 157, 168 (1979). Given the earlier controversy from the preceding meeting and the letter campaign referenced by Broshi, a court could find that Wrocklage is a limited public figure but there is a room for challenge on this point.

THE STANDARD

Under New York law, Wrocklage must show (1) a “defamatory statement of fact concerning the plaintiff; (2) publication to a third party; (3) fault [(actual malice for public figures)]; (4) falsity of the defamatory statement; and (5) special damages or per se accountability (defamatory on its face).” Biro v. Conde Nast, 883 F. Supp. 2d 441, 446 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).

The standard for defamation for public figures and officials in the United States is the product of a decision decades ago in New York Times v. Sullivan. Ironically, this is precisely the environment in which the opinion was written and he is precisely the type of plaintiff that the opinion was meant to deter. The Supreme Court ruled that tort law could not be used to overcome First Amendment protections for free speech or the free press. The Court sought to create “breathing space” for the media by articulating that standard that now applies to both public officials and public figures. In order to prevail, West must show either actual knowledge of its falsity or a reckless disregard of the truth. The standard for defamation for public figures and officials in the United States is the product of a decision decades ago in New York Times v. Sullivan. Ironically, this is precisely the environment in which the opinion was written and he is precisely the type of plaintiff that the opinion was meant to deter. The Supreme Court ruled that tort law could not be used to overcome First Amendment protections for free speech or the free press. The Court sought to create “breathing space” by articulating that standard that now applies to both public officials and public figures.

THE ALLEGED DEFAMATION

At various points, it is clear that Wrocklage is being called an effective racist, which Wrocklage objects to as slander. There is no question that an allegation of racism is a serious matter but Broshi could challenge the basis for claiming a per se category of defamation. New York recognizes four categories: “statements (i) charging plaintiff with serious crime; (ii) that tend to injure another [plaintiff] in his . . . trade, business, or profession; (iii) that plaintiff has a loathsome disease; or (iv) imputing unchastity to a woman.” Liberman v. Gelstein, 605 N.E.2d 344, 347 (N.Y. 1992). This is not an allegation of a crime, but it certainly would injure the professional reputation of Wrocklage to be labeled a racist.

Yet, a defamatory statement “must do more than cause discomfort or affront”; it must lead “reasonable minds” to “think the speech attributes odious or despicable characterizations to its subject.” Chau v. Lewis, 771 F.3d 118, 127 (2d Cir. 2014). In this case there are countervailing statements that Wrocklage is being accused of acting like a racist rather than being a racist. For example, consider Broshi’s later comment:

“Integration is a system. Tom I don’t know what to tell you, I know you believe you did nothing wrong, but you have a 100 people that told you—I am not calling you racist… I’m saying that was racist behavior. . . We are all capable of racist behavior. I am capable of racist behavior… I owned up to it in this meeting! Right now, when I apologized to Edward… And we should apologize when we offend people of color! When they get upset. When they say this is a harmful space, when they log out of a meeting immediately because they see white people exhibiting their power over people of color… If you can’t even read a book about White Fragility or Ibrahim X. Kendi, I can’t sit here in a working business meeting and educate you about the distinction between interpersonal racism and systemic racism.”

For Wrocklage, the distinction between acting racist and being racist is a precious one. He is still being denounced as effectively or actually a racist.

That however leads to the next complication: opinion or hyperbole. The Supreme Court actually dealt with such an overheated council meeting in Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Association v. Bresler, 398 U.S. 6 (1970), in which a newspaper was sued for using the word “blackmail” in connection to a real estate developer who was negotiating with the Greenbelt City Council to obtain zoning variances. The Court applied the actual malice standard and noted:

It is simply impossible to believe that a reader who reached the word “blackmail” in either article would not have understood exactly what was meant: It was Bresler’s public and wholly legal negotiating proposals that were being criticized. No reader could have thought that either the speakers at the meetings or the newspaper articles reporting their words were charging Bresler with the commission of a criminal offense. On the contrary, even the most careless reader must have perceived that the word was no more than rhetorical hyperbole, a vigorous epithet used by those who considered Bresler’s negotiating position extremely unreasonable.

Of course, calling someone repeatedly a racist is more than simply “rhetorical hyperbole.” However, it is also part of a public debate that is heavily laden with protected political speech. If Broshi can be sued for defamation in making such an allegation, it could chill political speech at a time when the entire nation is focused on our continuing struggle with racism. This is her opinion of the actions of Wrocklage– an opinion that has been subjected to both worldwide criticism and support.

Yet, the Supreme Court has shown that there are limits to opinion as a defense as in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990). In that case, there was another inflammatory allegation stemming from a public meeting. An Ohio high school wrestling coach sued over an opinion column alleging that he had lied under oath at a public hearing, saying that it was tantamount to an allegation of perjury. The trial judge granted summary judgment on the ground that the assertion in the newspaper column was opinion. The Court however rejected the defense in the case in 7-2 opinion written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist. The Court noted that “expressions of ‘opinion’ may often imply an assertion of objective fact” and may inflict “as much damage to reputation” as factual claims. Moreover, some opinions are based on assertions that are “sufficiently factual to be susceptible of being proved true or false.”

I would submit that calling someone a racist is not one of those facts easily “susceptible of being proved true or false.” Moreover, the risk to chilling political speech is too great, particularly when the meaning and systemic presence of racism is being debated throughout our society.

THE VERDICT

Thus, Wrocklage’s denouncing the slander is likely as rhetorical as the allegation of racism from a legal perspective. That does not excuse any of these attacks, but the recourse for Wrocklage is to engage his critics in the court of public opinion, as he has with a global audience.

Slander or Opinion? Claims Of Racism and Defamation Fly After Education Council Member Is Seen Bouncing Black Child On Lap published first on https://immigrationlawyerto.tumblr.com/

1 note · View note