
For the quilt lovers...I am posting some pics of the quilts I saw at MQX Quilt Show ~ I hope you all enjoy! I will put them in a thread.


More from Fun
Today's Twitter threads (a Twitter thread).
Inside: Mashing the Bernie meme; Know Nothings, conspiratorialism and Pastel Q; and more!
Archived at: https://t.co/cKWPSzuYHE
#Pluralistic
1/
Mashing the Bernie meme: What if every video game, except Bernie with mittens?
https://t.co/Zcs71oUras
2/
Inside: Mashing the Bernie meme; Know Nothings, conspiratorialism and Pastel Q; and more!
Archived at: https://t.co/cKWPSzuYHE
#Pluralistic
1/

Mashing the Bernie meme: What if every video game, except Bernie with mittens?
https://t.co/Zcs71oUras
2/

The remix culture of the early 2000s left an indelible impression on me, an enduring delight in the power of whimsy, juxtaposition, virtuosity and ingenuity - and the ability of strangers all over the world to collaborate without any explicit coordination.
— Cory Doctorow #BLM (@doctorow) January 31, 2021
1/ pic.twitter.com/hMKzmoxjLu
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.

Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)

There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.

At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?