Weird one that totally makes sense: "tron mind control"
Weird one that totally doesn't make sense: "do spots mean you are getting ill"
Please never visit my blog again: "raped by a dog"
Obvious, yet, why is anyone searching on this phrase: "letters from titan"
- If you're Jewish, you probably know what blood libel is
- if you're not Jewish, you have a better than even chance of not knowing
- Anecdata (my favorite made-up word ever) suggests that if you are from the US, not Jewish and not a medieval history scholar or hobbiest, your likelihood of knowing the term "blood libel" pre-Sarah Palin drops to around 35%.
- Anecdata also suggests to me, and I wish the polling tool on LJ was better so that I could actually do this and run the numbers for real, that people who were raised more religiously, REGARDLESS OF FAITH, are more likely to be familiar with the "blood libel" term.
- General poll problems include self-selecting respondents, comparatively low numbers of Jewish respondents, and the ways in which LJ response samples don't necessarily reflect the general population in terms of age, income and gender. In general, my gut tells me that a similar poll done on a general-population sample would show an even lower awareness of the meaning of "blood libel" among non-Jewish folks.
- something that doesn't suck that looks asexuality in literature or media from a queer theory perspective
- old/bad/offensive material that presents asexuality as the absence of orientation instead of an orientation in and of itself
- this wacky universal Internet ID plan (which is horrible) and pseundonymous vs. anonymous identity
- "fuck you and your untouchable face" -- why mentors will break your heart
- Miss New York and her LGBT-rights platform
Why is this happening? The first post on the new blog will hopefully explain, and I don't want to steal its thunder, but the short answer for here? LJ culture and I aren't getting along real well right now, mainly because I don't know how to keep doing what I've been doing, and so this slightly new thing may be what I need to do to feel like I can regain authority over my own words.
These charges are extremely plausible, and let's remember that very, very, very few rape accusations turn out to be lies, even in light of a craptastic conviction rate. Let's also remember that even if Assange is acquitted and/or the charges turn out to be false -- death threats against people are not appropriate. Yes, the women, whose stories have been deemed reasonable enough for this matter to be explored in court, are getting death threats (because, of course assholes have posted their personal contact details and residence information on the Internet) -- NOT OKAY, PEOPLE. Also, I haven't the faintest idea how to say this and get it right, but I'm going to try: I both think that yes, Assange raped those women and therefore should be convicted of doing so, and am somewhat uncomfortable with the social requirement that we pronounce him guilty outside/prior to legal proceedings to which we are not party.
Yesterday I also pissed some people off by being "eh, Michael Moore, etc. is a distraction" in passing (post was deleted as I was out, and didn't have the technology available to clarify in a way that was going to do anyone any favors), which was more a reflection on my having long thought Michael Moore isn't worth listening to outside of his films (which I also have issues with) than whatever I actually managed to say instead. I realize not everyone feels that way about Moore, or he wouldn't have the audience he does, so obviously there is use in people engaging with him being an asshole about rape. As to the Olbermann climbing into that disaster car part of the story, again with the "I'm not surprised so it didn't get my energy" department. It is meanwhile good that it's getting somebody's energy. I hope that clarifies. I suspect that Moore will continue to be a complete asshole and Olbermann may apologize, but that's mostly a guess based on my perception of their respective levels of PR savvy. I know nothing of what is in anyone's heart. The good news on this front, such as it is, is that online protest involving this part of the mess has generated what seems to be significant donations to multiple charities that fight rape and support women who have been raped.
Meanwhile, Assange is no longer the head of Wikileaks and hasn't been for a little bit now. It says something about the media coverage that I can't even remember the new guy's name. But the reason I bring this up, without casting any aspersions on him, is that in journalism source matters and between the Assange situation and the Wikileaks may employ Holocaust denier story, WikiLeaks is doing an awfully good job at making its important work look unbelievably suspect.
Additionally, is anyone clear on if the insurance file is about the security of WikiLeaks or the security of Assange? Who controls the unlock key now? Is it all a big bluff? Are WikiLeaks and Assange working in any sort of tandem at this point? Why or why not?
The rape story is important in and of itself (starting with: gosh, is this making any of the people or systems that have never really cared about rape, care more about rape outside of this case? Sadly, I don't think so). The rape story is also important re: WikiLeaks, Internet culture, liberal-bastion politics and a bunch of other things. There are other elements of the WikiLeaks story that don't intersect the rape part of the story that are also critical. I have no idea how ANYONE can focus on all the hydra heads this thing has grown at this point, but there sure are a lot of them.
Also, if you bank with BofA, prepare for web fuckery as they suspend WikiLeaks transactions. Whether this is about Assange and the rape charges; the US (and international) rage at WikiLeaks; or the possibility that WikiLeaks might be about to release a ton of info on the banking industry is all speculation at this point.
Finally, if you don't read browneyedgirl65 you should. She has been blogging EXCELLENTLY on WikiLeaks and a few other subjects of late.