Edit: I put this together before heading out on a bike ride. I've edited it for formatting now that I'm back.

I've put together a reading list of sorts for critical theory that tries to expand perspectives into critical theory from women, from people of colour, and from Indigenous perspectives. I'm white, I'm a man, I write from the land of the Wurundjeri People in Naarm and I come from Aotearoa, and thus my perspectives are influenced by scholarship from these regions. Equally, my scholarship focuses me towards particular areas and ideas, and my personal interests are probably visible below. I would not consider myself an authority on these works, but I do try to learn from them. Feel free to add comments of scholars that you think could be added.

This list is motivated by two things:

• A request for suggestions in response to my comment here.
• A sense that one 'must read' a limited number of white men before reading scholars of different backgrounds, as if white men are the source, and non-white people are simply responding to these ideas as if they were central. Fisher's Vampire Castle essay, for instance, often circulates in this forum. The same observations about the limits of identity within politics and the academy were already present in the works of Gilroy, Crenshaw, Fanon, and Said. Most of the scholars below require no substantive engagement with an existing canon. Maybe Siraj Ahmed, Gayatri Spivak, or Elizabeth Povinelli; Ahmed's take is very much about literary postcolonial scholarship, in which case reading Edward Said would be a help; Spivak's work interfaces deeply with continental philosophy; Povinelli's work is reliant on Foucault and the theorisation of power that he uses.

That said, the items below is not a 'must read' or anything in order to understand critical theory, nor is it a new canon, nor is it a suggestion that one shouldn't read scholarship by white men (but, by all means…). These are merely further suggestions. It is an attempt to start the circulation of other works. Most of them (but not all) do not require you to have read any of the canon, as, like the canon, their ideas emerge from analysis of the present.

Critical theory was originally a discipline set up by a number of men, most of whom were Jewish and had survived the Shoah, but some, such as Benjamin, had not. Others came later, and a

Hi everyone ! I am excited to start reading "The Waves" with all of you. I did some reading about the book and the author that I would like to share with all of you.

[Text from Oxford World Classics, by Frank Kermode, with some minor editing ]

About the Author :

TW - sexual assault, depression, suicide

VIRGINIA WOOLF was born Adeline Virginia Stephen on 25 January 1882 at 22 Hyde Park Gate, Kensington. Her parents (Leslie Stephen and Julia Jackson, already had children from their first marriages and whose spouses passed away) have strong associations with literature.

Virginia had the free run of her father’s library, a better substitute for the public school and university education she was denied than most women of the time could aspire to.

Her mother died in 1895, and in that year she had her first breakdown>!possibly related in some way to the sexual molestation of which her half-brother George Duckworth is accused!<

By 1897 she was able to read again, and did so voraciously: ‘Gracious, child, how you gobble’, remarked her father, who allowed her to choose her reading freely. He fell ill in 1902 and died in 1904. Virginia suffered another breakdown, during which she heard the birds singing in Greek (if I am correct she refers in her other works). On her recovery she moved, with her brothers and sister, to a house in Gordon Square, Bloomsbury; there what eventually became famous as the Bloomsbury Group took shape.

It was in 1905 that she began to write for publication in the Times Literary Supplement. Despite much ill health in these years, she travelled a good deal, and had an interesting social life in London. She did a little adult-education teaching, worked for female suffrage. In 1912, after another bout of nervous illness, she married Leonard Woolf.

In 1913, her first book, Voyage Out, was accepted for publication by her half-brother Gerald Duckworth. >!She was often ill with depression and anorexia, and attempted suicide!<She published Night and Day, To the Lighthouse, Orlando a lot of short works and finally ..

The Waves was written and rewritten in 1930 and 1931 (published in October of that year). She worked on Between the Acts her last book and finished it in February 1941. Thereafter her mental condition deteriorated alarmingly>!, and on 28 March, unable to face another bout of insanity, she drowned herself in the River Ouse.

With the Hugo's being announced this Saturday, I thought I'd put out my rankings of all the nominees (excepting the one novella I haven't read yet). I also have links to where you can read all the short stories and novelettes online. I'd love to hear what people thought of the different nominees, and what you think should win.

Note: Please limit comments to thoughts on the specific works nominated, or specific works that you feel should have been nominated but weren't. If you would like to discuss the demographics of nominees/winners, or the general validity/utility of the Hugo's, please make your own post to do so.

Novels:

1. Piranesi, Susanna Clarke (Bloomsbury)

This book is a wonderful, bizarre, puzzling gem of a book. It is among the best books I've ever read. I hope that Susanna Clarke is able to continue writing. The less you know before reading it, the better.

2. Network Effect, Martha Wells (Tordotcom)

Our first Murderbot novel, and as such, as great as you'd expect.

3. The Relentless Moon, Mary Robinette Kowal (Tor Books)

I've really liked the Lady Astronaut books, seeing how the alternate world and history is progressing.

4. The City We Became, N. K. Jemisin (Orbit)

I have really mixed feelings about this book. Jemisin has a very engaging writing style, making it a fun read, but it was also pretty frustrating. The City We Became begins with a previously published short story, The City Born Great, that functions as a prologue. That was about the only short story of Jemisin's that I really don't like, because getting literally 'hip-checked' by the Bronx is just too abstract for me. I wanted to like the short story, but didn't. Perhaps it would have helped, for this and the book in general, if I was more familiar with New York City, but I've never been, so personifying the bureaus doesn't mean a whole lot to me. The abstract city battles weren't too much of a problem after the prologue, but I was frustrated that >!the only tactic the Lovecraftian horror appeared to be using to cause problems was white supremacy. Don't get me wrong, obviously that's a huge real-world problem, but it leaves out so much of excuses and reasons people fight and hate each other that could and should have also been used. The lack of nuance, particularly when compared with The Broken Earth trilogy, felt to me like it significantly weakened the story.!< That said, there was a lot of insight into racism and white supremacy. And, as I said, it

This post examines eight major Thanksgiving myths, covering these topics.

1. The secular festival myth.
2. The 1623 Thanksgiving myth.
3. The free market capitalism myth.
4. The starving Pilgrims myth.
5. The smallpox death celebration myth.
6. The theologically motivated Wampanoags myth.
7. The Pequot massacre celebration myth.
8. The cannibalism & grave robbing myth.

If you're more interested in watching a video, you can view this same content here.

The only two colonial primary sources of the event, written by Edward Winslow and William Bradford, were lost during the eighteenth century, which contributed to the historical obscurity of the event, and its lack of cultural recognition outside the New England states. I will be drawing on these two primary sources throughout this post, as well as on mainstream scholarly commentary.

The secular festival myth

One common belief is that the 1621 meal was not actually a Christian thanksgiving to God, but was actually a simple meal with which the Pilgrims thanked the local Wampanoag people for helping survive. [1] From a slightly different perspective their 2001 book The Times of Their Lives: Life, Love, and Death in Plymouth Colony, James and Patricia Deetz similarly make the claim that since the Winslow account of the 1621 meal “makes no mention of thanks”, it is “not close enough for us to see the event as the “first Thanksgiving”. [2] Instead, they characterize it as an English harvest festival, of no religious significance.

Historian Jeremy Bangs, who has specialized in the study of the Pilgrims, takes issue with this conclusion, considering it badly founded on insufficient evidence. [3] He points out that even if it was a harvest festival, such occasion were certainly not secular, and were accompanied by prayers. He notes that the Book of Common Prayer the Pilgrims would have taken them from England, actually contains a prayer specifically for a harvest thanksgiving. [4]

Additionally, Bangs observes that Winslow’s thanksgiving account “includes biblical phrases referring to texts whose completion includes thanksgiving”, which would certainly have been known by the other members of the community, and recognized as part of the meal’s fundamentally religious character. [5]

Bangs concludes by writing “We think the Pilgrims should have thanked the Indians”, before adding that it is “still inaccurate to bend the evidence to suggest that the P

TLDR : This is a sum of the most important Universal Basic Income experiments (when you hand over enough cash to people to survive, for free, without any conditions), that shows that it works in alleviating all social issues, poverty, illnesses, unemployment and lack of education, proving to be far more effective than traditional traditional welfare state approaches, with its monstruous bureauratic conundrum, while costing much less money too !

London, May 2009 – An experiment is under way. Its subjects: thirteen homeless men. They are veterans of the street. Some have been sleeping on the cold pavement of the Square Mile, Europe’s financial center, for going on forty years. Between the police expenses, court costs, and social services, these thirteen troublemakers have racked up a bill estimated at £400,000 ($650,000) or more.

Per year. The strain on city services and local charities is too great for things to go on this way. So Broadway, a London-based aid organization, makes a radical decision: From now on, the city’s thirteen consummate drifters will be getting VIP treatment. It’s adiós to the daily helpings of food stamps, soup kitchens, and shelters. They’re getting a drastic and instantaneous bailout. From now on, these rough sleepers will receive free money. To be exact, they’re getting £3,000 in spending money, and they don’t have to do a thing in return.

How they spend it is up to them. They can opt to make use of an advisor if they’d like – or not. There are no strings attached, no questions to trip them up.

The only thing they’re asked is: What do you think you need?

“I didn’t have enormous expectations,” one social worker later recalled.

But the drifters’ desires proved eminently modest. A telephone, a dictionary, a hearing aid – each had his own ideas about what he needed. In fact, most were downright thrifty. After one year, they had spent an average of just £800. Take Simon, who had been strung out on heroin for twenty years. The money turned his life around. Simon got clean and started taking gardening classes. “For some reason, for the first time in my life, everything just clicked,” he said later. “I’m starting to look after myself, wash and shave. Now I’m thinking of going back home. I’ve got two kids.” A year and a half after the experiment began, seven of the thirteen rough sleepers had a roof over their heads. Two more were about to move into their own apartments.

I don't want to step on anybody's toes here, but the amount of non-dad jokes here in this subreddit really annoys me. First of all, dad jokes CAN be NSFW, it clearly says so in the sub rules. Secondly, it doesn't automatically make it a dad joke if it's from a conversation between you and your child. Most importantly, the jokes that your CHILDREN tell YOU are not dad jokes. The point of a dad joke is that it's so cheesy only a dad who's trying to be funny would make such a joke. That's it. They are stupid plays on words, lame puns and so on. There has to be a clever pun or wordplay for it to be considered a dad joke.

Again, to all the fellow dads, I apologise if I'm sounding too harsh. But I just needed to get it off my chest.

Alot of great jokes get posted here! However just because you have a joke, doesn't mean it's a dad joke.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT NSFW, THIS IS ABOUT LONG JOKES, BLONDE JOKES, SEXUAL JOKES, KNOCK KNOCK JOKES, POLITICAL JOKES, ETC BEING POSTED IN A DAD JOKE SUB

Try telling these sexual jokes that get posted here, to your kid and see how your spouse likes it.. if that goes well, Try telling one of your friends kid about your sex life being like Coca cola, first it was normal, than light and now zero , and see if the parents are OK with you telling their kid the "dad joke"

I'm not even referencing the NSFW, I'm saying Dad jokes are corny, and sometimes painful, not sexual

So check out r/jokes for all types of jokes

r/unclejokes for dirty jokes

r/3amjokes for real weird and alot of OC

r/cleandadjokes If your really sick of seeing not dad jokes in r/dadjokes

Punchline !

Edit: this is not a post about NSFW , This is about jokes, knock knock jokes, blonde jokes, political jokes etc being posted in a dad joke sub

Edit 2: don't touch the thermostat

Do your worst!

Ants don’t even have the concept fathers, let alone a good dad joke. Keep r/ants out of my r/dadjokes.

But no, seriously. I understand rule 7 is great to have intelligent discussion, but sometimes it feels like 1 in 10 posts here is someone getting upset about the jokes on this sub. Let the mods deal with it, they regulate the sub.

They were cooked in Greece.

I'm surprised it hasn't decade.

There is a story about the Bloomsbury Group writer Lytton Strachey who was a 'confirmed bachelor', as they used to put it. He was also a conscientious objector and a pacifist. He appeared before the conscientious objection board. It was their job to quiz him on whether he actually was a true pacifist or just a coward trying to get out of serving.

They said: „Mr Strachey, are you married?“

„No, I am not.“

„Well then, do you have a sister?“

„Yes, I do have sister“, said Strachey.

„Well Mr Strachey, suppose a German soldier came and tried to r*pe her. What would you do?“

„In that case“, Strachey replied, „I would endeavour to place myself between them.“

How the hell am I suppose to know when it’s raining in Sweden?

Don't you know a good pun is its own reword?

Two muffins are in an oven, one muffin looks at the other and says "is it just me, or is it hot in here?"

Then the other muffin says "AHH, TALKING MUFFIN!!!"

For context I'm a Refuse Driver (Garbage man) & today I was on food waste. After I'd tipped I was checking the wagon for any defects when I spotted a lone pea balanced on the lifts.

I said "hey look, an escaPEA"

No one near me but it didn't half make me laugh for a good hour or so!

Edit: I can't believe how much this has blown up. Thank you everyone I've had a blast reading through the replies 😂

It really does, I swear!

And now I’m cannelloni

Because she wanted to see the task manager.

But that’s comparing apples to oranges

And boy are my arms legs.

Heard they've been doing some shady business.

London, May 2009 – An experiment is under way. Its subjects: thirteen homeless men. They are veterans of the street. Some have been sleeping on the cold pavement of the Square Mile, Europe’s financial center, for going on forty years. Between the police expenses, court costs, and social services, these thirteen troublemakers have racked up a bill estimated at £400,000 ($650,000) or more.

Per year. The strain on city services and local charities is too great for things to go on this way. So Broadway, a London-based aid organization, makes a radical decision: From now on, the city’s thirteen consummate drifters will be getting VIP treatment. It’s adiós to the daily helpings of food stamps, soup kitchens, and shelters. They’re getting a drastic and instantaneous bailout. From now on, these rough sleepers will receive free money. To be exact, they’re getting £3,000 in spending money, and they don’t have to do a thing in return.

How they spend it is up to them. They can opt to make use of an advisor if they’d like – or not. There are no strings attached, no questions to trip them up.

The only thing they’re asked is: What do you think you need?

“I didn’t have enormous expectations,” one social worker later recalled.

But the drifters’ desires proved eminently modest. A telephone, a dictionary, a hearing aid – each had his own ideas about what he needed. In fact, most were downright thrifty. After one year, they had spent an average of just £800. Take Simon, who had been strung out on heroin for twenty years. The money turned his life around. Simon got clean and started taking gardening classes. “For some reason, for the first time in my life, everything just clicked,” he said later. “I’m starting to look after myself, wash and shave. Now I’m thinking of going back home. I’ve got two kids.” A year and a half after the experiment began, seven of the thirteen rough sleepers had a roof over their heads. Two more were about to move into their own apartments.

All thirteen had taken critical steps toward solvency and personal growth. They were enrolled in classes, learning to cook, going through rehab, visiting their families, and making plans for the future. “It empowers people,” one of the social workers said about the personalized budget. “It gives choices. I think it can make a difference.” After decades of fruitless pushing, pulling, pampering, penalizing, prosecuting, and protecting, nine notorious vagr