POLS 406

[ruinedchildhood]

[full-metal-furies]

[medievalthymes]

me and the girlies on our way to the knickknacks and trinkets section of the thrift store

[thatcatblog]

[unclefather]

Was she wrong?

[mapelie]

That’s the biggest round loaf bun I’ve ever seen

[ao3commentoftheday]

https://archiveofourown.org/skins/3756

[emperorsfoot]

This is a fantastic solution to the wall-o-tags problem on AO3 and I truly appreciate it and will promote this skin whenever the opportunity presents itself! <3

That being said, I probably won’t personally use this skin since it doesn’t appear to have either a night mode or a sepia version. Being able to comfortably read fics is more important to me than having a convenient way to scroll past irritating tags. 

[ao3commentoftheday]

Go to your AO3 Dashboard.

Go to Skins.

Click on the Create Site Skin button.

Scroll down and hit the button that says Show next to Advanced.

Scroll down to Parent Skins and click the button that says Add Parent Skin. 

Type Reversi into the field and select it from the dropdown. That’s dark mode.

Type Shortening long tag fields into the field and select it from the dropdown. That will shorten your tag fields. 

Scroll back up and give your new skin a name, then save the skin and use it. 

If you have a site skin that you’ve coded for yourself, you can add that in by typing its name into the field instead. Or you can add this new skin to your custom one using the same steps.

[tansit]

[inzergue]

biblical

[grimauxiliatrixofficial]

PISSED Off

[firefox-official]

Firefox is a valid warrior cat name tho

shut the fuck up anonclaw

[magupol406]

Every 12 Seconds... -- critique

I don’t know why they’re in different fonts? I pasted it from MS word and i can’t change it I guess… sorry!

- Tyler 

[bhj406]

The most striking part of the response was the application of the text from animals to human beings. To come to the connection between the two, or to take from the reading and apply it else where is a well done notion. It allows for both better understanding of the text and newer applications.

The issue of the “confinement” of the horrors of the slaughterhouse, as well as the horrors of war are both eerily similar. It was a pertinent point within the text that deserves more lengths of perusal. It might do well to take more examples from the text (of issues of the acts committed in the slaughterhouse) and then juxtaposes them to some of the acts of the horrors done to those in war zones. In describing the “zone of confinement” it might also do well to discuss the “visible/invisible” issue that Pacharit went over in the last chapter. Explaining this in the second paragraph where it is on how torture going on on “home soil” is harder to swallow than across the sea. Adding those bits there might help give the paragraph more meat and structure.

Over all, well done response! There were just a few bits that needed refining. If you wanted to add more structure or bits that can be used to add more to I would suggest trying to snag more from the text. Otherwise the only other thing would be to structure the writing in a more organized way. Though, it was just a response to the text and not a full blown essay so it does not seem to need to have too much more evidence. Or also, to have to follow a ridge guideline. The tone used is a tad angry sounding as well, though that is just an observation.

TLDR; 1) References from the text? 2)Maybe more points/more organization, though it’s not that big of a deal. Rather interesting read!

[bhj406]

The beginning was a heavy read, and gripping too. I’m a sucker for the more novel like writing, it feels more personal and easier to relate to. While the unreliable narrator is an issue when dealing with writing, it poses a question that for everything written, it is always written with an angle at mind.To write something down for an audience, there is always a purpose behind it regardless of what that writing it.

The particular word choices which were used for this piece were obviously picked with care. Using the right words to draw out a response from the reader. Which, in this case, is present itself in the other chapters. The beginning is done in a way that appeals to the humanity, using words that invoke certain emotions, just in the beginning alone. Like “livid with indignation” or “demeaning work” or “acidly in my throat.” By doing this first it creates this affect that travels with the reader while they go on to the facts and evidence the author goes on to present. Another used skill was to start the chapter off with a quote or story, as the author does for each. It carries a theme which is hung over the whole chapter and makes the reader remember it throughout.

In an odd way the use of the slaughterhouse as a reflection of politics makes sense. The issue on transparency for both the slaughterhouse and political power are interesting in the way that they both are needed to function. The call for more to be shown for some, yet hiding the morbidity of others is an interesting idea. I personally liked the bit, explaining the why people would want it hidden or “under our gaze.” The examples used and the way it was explained made sense. To tie it home, it felt like it could be applied with the homeless population and how majority of people feel about them.

An aside, but the story also reminded me about something someone said once. It was on how even if you were to go vegetarian or vegan, there would still be blood on your hands. They went into detail about the hidden things/things most don’t pay attention to when dealing with both raising animals and farming. Which is why the person chose to hunt the animals themselves instead of buying the product, rather knowing how they got the blood on their hands rather than living in an ignorant state.  

Questions: What was your favorite part and why? Did it have to do with the writing, theory presented or the actions the writing described? What else, other than the slaughterhouse, could the writing be applied to and why? Was the writing effective? Did it make sense or was it somewhat vague and confusing? Why?

[bhj406]

This Changes Everything

I liked Naomi Klein’s writing a little more Zizek’s. It’s more straightforward and easier to read, though longer. I feel that the writing is more accessible and is open to a wider audience. Which, for the purpose of the book is a well placed move. I feel that she wrote the book in a way gives us the ethos, pathos and logos that is needed for an argument. It’s done in a way that presents the history and reasons people took that route, which personally I like. Mainly because it feels like it builds upon each other. It’s done in a way that makes the person want to read. It reads like a story in some parts to help draw in the reader, like when she describes the speakers and lectures.

In the beginning of the book, I personally liked the questions that she posed. It stuck out to me, because of the validity of what she’s asking. She poses, “what’s wrong with us?” and mentions about sacrifice and what we’re doing as a society to ourselves. Which, feels poetic and important to think about. (Straying on what would we do as a race if things go bad enough, but that’s a tangent.) She prompts a lot of questions throughout the book and Klein, I feel, likes to use pointed questions into steering us to her side. “Most provocative is Australian climate expert Clive Hamilton, who has wondered aloud whether “thegeoengineers [are] modern-day Phaetons, who dare to regulate the sun, and who must be struck down by Zeus before they destroy the earth?” She presents the information on the other argument and what’s going on and then ends it with some questions that are pointed and poised. This quote, while not her own, really fits as it has a connotation and history to it which we can relate to and derive our own meaning. I personally like the questions as they make one think. It goads one into thinking about the argument and the facts rather than just passively read.

It’s a lot of history and examples to wade through, but it makes sense why it’s there which I can’t fault. It’s there to help explain the different view points and why they’re there. I feel like the book is a plea in a way, at the end. “The stakes are simply too high, and time too short, to settle for anything less.” That really drove the point home, to me.  

[bhj406]

Event: A Philosophical Journey Through A Concept (Why)

The first half of this book had merit, the second half not so much. 



There were so many things that did not make sense, or were directly contradicting. Was this a style of writing to make one point stronger, or was it just trying to overachieve? It could be the subject matter that was being discussed. As it was a different type of reasoning for how and why events are realized. The concept itself was rather confusing, but I felt that the second of half of the book was just listing examples instead of like the first half that took more time to explain itself. The purpose of the text, from what I gathered, was that the creation/realization of the event is not linear, but could also be circular. (Or just an odd paradox explanation, as provided via "it is at the same time only theology which can provide the frame enabling us to somehow approach the scope of this catastrophe – the fiasco of God is still the fiasco of God." pg.111)". The use of sex and sexual desire as a prime example or something referenced so many times did not make sense to me. Why was it so needed? I figured it was because I was looking at the text trying to understand the event from something I could use for class rather than philological. The use falling/being in love as an example however, made sense to me in explaining the situation. The topic of fantasy was interesting, but I wish was touched more upon. It was used as an example far too many times, yet I felt it needed more explanation. Also more building of examples of non-sexual fantasy, which I believe is a thing. The author uses the “cake” metaphor to explain about how fantasy creates itself or to give shape to an event, yet then goes to say that all fantasy is derived from something else.I did not understand the need to validate Freud or to use him so much in the text. I can understand using him as a base, as something to build upon, but as used as a truth so many times, it raises questions. When discussed in class it makes more sense why Freud is used as an example/validating source, but I wish it explained in the text why it was so important to use Freud and not some other person. These few things were what really bothered me about the text, which made it hard to wade through. In all, I can see the importance of the theory of an event now.