7 Matching Annotations
  1. Nov 2019
  2. Sep 2018
    1. They should be given every right in the world, and anybody who wants to hurt them is bad.

      The classic ending which on the surface states the view the public's version of itself demands, said to undercut what the speaker has just actually said. The challenge I have with Norm is what is his own intention with it? And to me that's what makes him interesting.

      See, "He's a good man," in reference to president of NBC, who had just fired him:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tudRETrphxk

    2. Because stand-up is a form and to subvert something, you have to do it perfectly first. I remember somebody showed me a talk show with “subversion” in it — the guy chainsawed his desk. It was so stupid. Why did you build a desk in the first place if you were only going to chainsaw it? Don’t have a fucking desk! You just want little drops of subversion. Letterman in the ‘80s would be 90 percent a great talk show and then 10 percent subversion. If you get to 30 percent subversion, you’re in Andy Kaufman land. If you get to 70 percent, you’re a guy on the streets screaming at people. What are you trying to subvert anyway? Entertaining people? It’s absurd.

      James Joyce: Dubliners precedes Finnegan's Wake.

    1. Because that’s just how we did it because we were men and this was our little terms of endearment. When I got mixed up with actors, I started doing that with them and they took it very personally because that’s not the way they operate. They’re more womanish, you know? So it wasn’t my fault! (l

      Norm Sexism

  3. Aug 2018
    1. Earlier, I have criticized Facebook for not anticipating the ethical problems with Facebook live and for its general approach of trying things out without much ethical forethought. But wouldn’t a pragmatist argue that because they are charting into new territory, digital innovators are more likely to make ethical mistakes giving the lack of existing normative framework?  This pragmatic defense only has limited power though, as there are general guiding ethical norms and principles in place already.  It is of course true that (some of) these norms might be subject to change in the digital environment and that sometimes our existing frameworks are ill-equipped to deal with new moral dilemmas. However, this does not excuse some of the more egregious ethical lapses we have seen recently, which were violations of well-known and accepted moral guidelines.
  4. Feb 2017
    1. Previous to the nineteenth century, physicians classified diseases based on the observation of the pre-conditional symptoms known at the time

      Since the medical practices to reveal abnormalities was not an entirely accurate way to "read" bodies, could it be possible that the 19th century norm only became the standard because they couldn't examine bodies to their fullest?

    2. Is anomaly the same thing as abnormality?

      Right; what are the socio-political "rules" regarding deviation? How does one find individuality if the goal is to approach genetic/biological/bodily uniformity?