Thirty-six prominent American writers including Eugene O’Neill, Dorothy Parker, and John Steinbeck, sent this telegram to President Franklin Roosevelt in November 1938, less than a week after Kristallnacht, the “Night of Broken Glass,” during which synagogues, homes, and Jewish-owned businesses across Germany were plundered and destroyed by the Nazis. They expressed outrage and asked the president to sever trade relations and declare an embargo on all “Nazi German goods.” Their telegram was just one of hundreds of telegrams and letters sent to U.S. government officials at the time expressing similar feelings of anger and dismay.
Telegram from 36 American Writers to President Roosevelt, 11/16/1938
If Cecil is inhuman, he stops being our daffy-yet-honest window into the bizare town’s goings-on and starts being part of evil’s propaganda machine. If he’s a monster, he knows what’s going on, and he’s lying to you. You don’t have to wonder what inhuman Cecil would be like — you’ve met Kevin! And Kevin already spent a whole episode lying to you! And literally the only way you know he was lying is that you trust Cecil to tell you the truth as he sees it. He’s not the most reliable of narrators, sure, but that’s out of ignorance and optimism, and never due to malice.
From this fantastic essay on the nature of the true terror of Welcome to Night Vale, written by ladysisyphus, which was linked in a reblog of my criticism of fandom’s perception of Cecil, the narrator of the series.
That’s a lot of links, I know. Just click the first one. It’s where the quote comes from.
A couple months back I helped brainstorm with NPR’s On The Media for their Breaking News Consumer’s Handbook, a basic guide on how to maintain a healthy skepticism when news orgs are covering a breaking news event. There’s been no shortage of major mistakes made by the media in recent years - Gabby Giffords, the Boston Bombing, Newtown, just to name a few - and there’s a lot we can do as news consumers to scrutinize what’s been reported.
This got me thinking about the tropes commonly used by journalists during breaking news and what they really mean. Last month I started documenting the terminology often used during a breaking news broadcast, and now I’ve made a matrix out of it. Each phrase is placed on the matrix based on how credible a report is, and how likely it is that a reporter feels secure if they actually say it on air. For example, if you say “Other networks are reporting,” it suggests you don’t necessarily know any facts yet, and that you’re deflecting blame from yourself to those other networks if it turns out to be wrong. Meanwhile, if you say “Multiple independent sources have confirmed…” it expresses more certitude, both in terms of the facts and your professional security if you go public with it - especially when you name those sources and explain how they came upon that information.
Anyway, this is my second draft of the matrix, and I’d love to get your thoughts on it. Thanks! - @acarvin
Anonymous asked: Can iiregardless and regardless be used interchangeably?
Regardless is a legitimate word that every single person on earth acknowledges as a valid word.
Irregardless, on the other hand, is an informal variant of regardless. It can be viewed as the illegitimate child of irrespective and regardless.
If you use irregardless (especially in your writing), you will incur the wrath of many people who will be more than happy to point out that irregardless is an “uneducated” word. (Some people even put irregardless on the same level of formality and legitimacy as ain’t, i.e., not very high.)
So again, the answer to your question is a resounding
Simply use regardless or irrespective, look smart, and move on.
The Trinity College Dublin has an absolutely gorgeous scan of the Book of Kells, in case you have some extra time and want to get lost in some history.
Here you go!