I fell in love with this song over a decade ago when a younger me saw it in an art museum in Chicago. I've never known what the words mean, though. I'm guessing it's in Arabic, but I'm not sure. I would love any help. Thanks.

eunoiatwelfthly · 13 days

Now I'm thinking it's probably Persian, since it's a Rumi poem.

FEMINIST_WITH_GUNS · 1 month

I KNOW WHAT A FUNNY RESPONSE WOULD BE! I COULD SAY THAT THE CROCS ARE MORE OFFENSIVE THAN THE RACISM BECAUSE THEY ARE REALLY UNCOOL! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH1!!1! I'M SURE NO ONE ELSE HAS MADE THIS JOKE YET, SO THERE IS NO NEED TO READ THE COMMENTS!

mikep500 · 1 month

What bothered me most about this was that they held the phone vertically while filming. Please hold the phone sideways when you use it to film something.

JennB854 · 1 month

A lot of people here are saying that parents are complaining about this because they just don't know how to say "no" or can't see that this is a real-world opportunity to teach kids self-control. But I think there's more to it than that.

In Sweden and Norway it is illegal to advertise to children under 12. The reason for this is that children are easily manipulated and don't have the mental capability to see through the gimmicks and implications of advertisements. Not because they haven't been taught how; young children are simply developmentally incapable of this level of thought.

So, while I don't personally think ice-cream trucks should be banned, I can understand the parents who do. It's one thing to teach your children to avoid the temptation of ice-cream in the grocery store or on the menu at a restaurant, for instance. It's a completely different thing when an ice cream truck comes right to a park full of kids, creates a carnival atmosphere with the music and lights, and uses social pressure to intensify the desire children have for the product. The whole enterprise is designed to manipulate children to whine to their parents for the product, knowing that the atmosphere they create will often overpower the emotions of even well-trained children. And, sure, it's the job of responsible parents to deal with this and even use it as an opportunity to teach, but it would be nice to be able to go to the park without having to quell your children who have been manipulated to cry at you and feel you're treating them unfairly.

jamiesw89 · 1 month

Tracy Chapman has been an amazingly consistent songwriter for many years now and I think she gets overlooked by many because of how straightforward and gimmick-free her music is.

Mojo_Nixon · 1 month

Because young babies are generally accepting of people they don't know and enjoy human interaction and some people who maybe don't have babies themselves simply get joy from seeing and interacting with such a new human. It's a completely harmless win-win situation unless you have a parent who projects their negative emotions onto their baby and gets offended at basic human interaction.

I'll quit arguing now, since I don't think I'm going to change your opinion on the matter, but I think this is a sign of an overprotective parent. If you can't just suck it up and allow your 4-month-old daughter to experience a pat on the head from a kind stranger then I can't imagine how worked up you'll get over other situations that are in your future.

Mojo_Nixon · 1 month

That's not logic. Why isn't it okay to touch random strangers? If we're talking about adults, it's probably because it makes people feel awkward and uncomfortable, maybe even unsafe. If we're talking about babies I can't think of a reason why a kind person who is approaching you in a friendly manner can't pat your baby on the head and tell you they're cute. If they're being rude, pushy, acting scary, etc. then that's another story. Here's an idea: Next time someone tries to touch your baby you should try to act completely nice and positive about it and see if the outcome is as awful as you seem to imagine it might be.

Mojo_Nixon · 1 month

Like I said before, it's totally your prerogative to say, "back the fuck off". Still, I haven't heard a clear logical reason to act this way.

Mojo_Nixon · 1 month

Because your daughter is such a new and amazing human being, such an unspoiled member of our human race, free of the cynicism and negativity and mistrustfulness that would, for example, make someone freak out and tell another human being to "back the fuck off" just for appreciating and kindly showing affection for this new human, who - untainted by your hostile attitude - would probably love and welcome said attention.

Mojo_Nixon · 1 month

So by your logic you are ok with me, a complete stranger, pinching your cheek or touching your fingers or tickling you in the vegetable ailse at the grocery store? Didn't think so.

By this logic, you would probably never even hold your own baby or change his diaper or let your wife breatfeed or strap them in a car seat or push them around in a stroller etc. My point being that babies are different than grown adults. You interact with them differently. They have no sense of personal space that is being disrespected by patting them on the head. It might bother you, and telling people to back off is your prerogative, but don't act like you're doing it for your baby. Your baby couldn't care less. This is an issue you have.

mepper · 1 month

One thing I've never understood about this argument:

Catholic institutions are being made to provide health coverage for employees who could then choose to use it on birth control for themselves. How is the institution anymore "guilty" of the "sin" in this instance than they are when employees use their income on something sinful? When did this line-of-guilt thinking start? How far removed from a sin do you have to be to have a clear conscience? Maybe you should never buy anything from a non-catholic, because then you are supporting a business that might in turn provide health care to their employees who might in turn use it on birth control. I mean, this just seems silly.

Mojo_Nixon · 1 month

Being a germaphobe can actually be bad for your baby. Kids raised in particularly sterile environments get sick more often and develop more allergies. Your baby will come in to contact with germs if you want her to live in the world, but the amount of germs she comes in contact with through your average person at the supermarket is not going to hurt her; it might even help strengthen her immune system.

Regardless, I think telling a normal looking person to fuck off when they touch your baby is a bit extreme. If they look homeless or cough in your baby's face or their hands are covered in snot then you may want to say something.

Mojo_Nixon · 1 month

Hmm... I'm definitely not the type of person who would even talk to someone I didn't know, much less touch their baby. I'm pretty anti-social. But I don't really see what the big deal is. I assume most people do this because they think your baby is cute and they're trying to be friendly. Why does it bother you so much? Do you think they're perverts getting off on touching your baby? Or do you think their germs will hurt your baby? You mention personal space, but babies don't really have a sense of personal space, so I don't see how it would bother your baby. And your personal space isn't really being invaded. They're not touching you, are they?

ndfan47 · 1 month

Regular ole' greasy burger - Five Guys. I would like to say Bluegrass Burgers or Bunz since they're local, but if I'm being real Five Guys blows their burgers away.

Fancy burger - Harvest. This burger was delicious. Perfectly charred on the outside, with chevre and bacon jam on an almost chewy pretzel bun.

Note - I haven't had the burger from Hammerheads but everything else I've had there is amazing. I'll definitely have to try it and see if it takes over the #1 spot in my fancy burger category.

Depresy · 1 month

Reminds me of the Pavement song Shady Lane:

"Oh my god, Oh your god, Oh his god, Oh her god..."

regondi · 1 month

There are some good recommendations here, and some I disagree with (Bukowski, ugh). But your tastes will change and grow. The poets you like now will be different than the ones you'll like a few years from now, most likely. So, I recommend finding this book. It's a pretty nice sampling of many great english-language poets from the last few hundred years and it's been my poetry bible for over a decade, now. This way you can flip through and just see what strikes your fancy. I could recommend some particular poets if you could give some examples of poetry you like or what you like about poetry.

mehatch · 1 month

I'm the same way with sunglasses. I don't like the sun in my eyes, but it's better than people thinking I'm trying to be cool.

placido12 · 1 month

I really liked Funeral and thought it was one of the 10 best albums of '04, but the "epicness" of it actually turns me off. It feels a little cheap, even. Haven't we known forever that you could could add a bunch of instruments and some strings and get an epic sound? It seems like people don't do this because it's cheesy and overwrought. I thought they were a little heavy-handed with this technique. I would say I liked Funeral in spite of their lack of restraint here.

As far as other bands that used that same "epic" sound, The Polyphonic Spree come to mind, except they used the technique sort of tongue-in-cheek. Arcade Fire are like a depressed Polyphonic Spree (haha, not really). I'm not saying they sound the same, but they share the same "large band with epic build ups" thing. A better comparison might be the Walkmen. They had a similar sounding album come out earlier in 2004 (Bows + Arrows) which I actually prefer to Funeral.

Like I said, I like the album. I just don't think it deserves to be top 50 all-time.

TheOneWeekAtheist · 1 month

"I was walking to my car after church one night and I saw a young skateboarding boy about to spray paint on a wall. I went up to him and said, 'Excuse me, young man. Mind if I ask why you're about to do that?' 'You wouldn't understand, dude!' the boy replied. 'Try me.' I said. 'Well,' said the boy, 'my parents just got divorced and my dad is moving out of the state with his new girlfriend and he doesn't want to be in my life anymore. I just don't understand why he doesn't love me!' 'I see,' I said, 'You can't always rely on people, even people you thought would always be there, and it hurts to realize that. But what if I told you that you have a heavenly father and he desperately wants a relationship with you? He wants you to come live with him in his giant mansion one day and never worry about anything ever again.' 'What are you talking about?' he asked. I took my Bible out and we had a talk right there about the sacrifice God made to save us. This young man who had looked so tough a few minutes ago was sitting on his skateboard with tears streaming down his face. And I'll have you know he invited the Lord into his heart that night."

If you've ever been to the types of churches that I grew up in, then you've heard stories like this. The congregation eats them up and totally believes them. To us, it's ridiculous. Of course that didn't actually happen. The story is clearly pandering to the desires of Christians to be understood by those that typically look down on them. Things in real life don't work out so perfectly. Changing your mind about something so big doesn't just happen like that; it is a process. This story is the same idea except it's reversed to pander to atheists. There is plenty to be skeptical of about this story. If it happens to be true, then good for the OP, but there is nothing wrong with voicing doubt, especially when there are a lot of people on reddit who aren't big fans of us.

TheOneWeekAtheist · 1 month

I'd like to believe this story is true, but I agree with you that it probably isn't. I'm really disappointed to see /r/atheism, of all places, mass downvote a post that is skeptical of something so dubious and pandering.

eunoiatwelfthly

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login