Summary of “Gateway Episodes: Living Single’s “Love Thy Neighbor” and “Mystery Date.””

The few exceptions include Amazon Prime, home to A Different World, and Hulu, where you can binge Family Matters or, my personal favorite, Living Single.
The all-white simulacrum, which began airing a year after Living Single’s debut, eventually became a megahit, with the core cast members raking in $1 million per episode by the end of the show’s 10-season run.
Despite its own success, Living Single ended after just five seasons, all of which are now streaming for those looking to be initiated into what the theme song calls “a ’90s kind of world.” And those initiates should start with the 18th and 19th episodes of the first season, “Love Thy Neighbor” and “Mystery Date.”.
The first part of “Love Thy Neighbor” revolves around a fairly standard sitcom trope: A new couple has moved in upstairs and is having loud, frequent sex.
Just as the first episode ends, a handsome new neighbor takes their place and ends up stirring up even more of a fuss than the previous ones did.
The episode ends with a party at Kyle and Overton’s apartment, where Hamilton finally chooses between the three ladies-the victor was chosen by viewers calling in to Fox-and Synclaire and Overton, who finally share a kiss at the end of “Love Thy Neighbor,” making a decision about their relationship.
I won’t give away any more than that, but it’s fair to say that “Love Thy Neighbor” and “Mystery Date” combine all the elements that make Living Single one of my favorite shows.
These episodes and Living Single writ large so convincingly capture, through the chemistry of the cast, true-blue friendship.

The orginal article.

Summary of “How Disney took to subverting its own romantic ideals”

Love, in the world of Walt Disney films, has changed.
Even if Gothel had to die in the end, she showed just how much narrative gold could be mined from family love.
Love is pure fantasy, thoroughly shaped by cultural representation and then repeated in our own behaviour.
Having exposed romantic love as a kind of cultural mimicry rather than as an innate emotion, Frozen then goes on to extol the love that links the two sisters as magical and natural.
Maybe romantic love could no longer sustain the faith that we need in order to endure the ambivalence of everyday attachments.
In Moana, for example, there is no romantic love to speak of, the old ideal has been completely usurped by the new.
In Tangled, romantic love still holds the upper hand, while in Frozen the roles have been flipped – here, it’s family love that ultimately wins the day.
In celebrating a romantic kind of love that the film has earlier exposed as somehow ‘fake’, the trolls easily fit into the stereotype of non-white ethnicities as naturally backwards: less modern, less woke to the nature of love in our time.

The orginal article.

Summary of “How to manipulate your memories to recall vacations more fondly”

People also tend to remember endings more than middles.
“The vacation includes three parts: the time before, the time during, and the time after,” says Dan Ariely, a professor at Duke University who studies human decision-making.
“So we need to think more about the time before, which is anticipation, and time after, which is memory.”
These men received the same medical procedure as the others, but doctors added a few extra minutes of less-painful but still uncomfortable colonoscopy time at the end.
The longer colonoscopy may have been more painful overall, but since the ending wasn’t so intense, the brain remembered the whole procedure as being less uncomfortable.
Good evidence for why endings matter more than middles.
The end of a vacation likewise stands out more than the time in the middle.
Ariely suggests symbolically ending a vacation late.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Trump, a Post reporter and a surprise phone call in Paris”

PARIS – “Would you like to speak to the president?”.
We had been talking for two hours or more, about all manner of things, including American politics, the president and the Democratic field for 2020.
A man at an adjacent table, whose back was to us, turned around, cellphone in hand, and asked me, “Would you like to speak to the president?”.
Because we were in Paris and had also been talking about Europe and related issues, I thought he might be talking about embattled French President Emmanuel Macron.
Still, the idea that it was President Trump on the other end seemed too weird to be real.
The man at the table next to us had mentioned to the president that, even in Paris, people were talking about him.
He seemed to be as surprised by the fact that he had a Washington Post reporter on the line as I had been to find that a man at a table next to mine was actually talking to the president of the United States.
I don’t know who was more surprised that we all ended up within a few feet of one another at a Paris brasserie with the president calling.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Democracy and Its Discontents”

A minor aspect of every geopolitical crisis since then has been the ritualized use of Fukuyama’s name as a piñata in the prestige media, asserting some variant of “The End of the End of History.” But the underlying trend of the succeeding years was a continuous expansion of democracy.
“The world is not moving toward greater democracy or converging toward greater openness,” Fukuyama conceded.
In the book, Fukuyama probes beyond the immediate triggers of the populist nationalist upsurge to the deeper sources of the discord threatening to undo liberal democracy.
“The Democrats have become the party of minorities, white professionals, and educated white women,” Fukuyama said, “While the Republicans are the white people’s party. It’s a moral disaster for American democracy.”
“A lot of immigrants become quite conservative,” Fukuyama noted, explaining why the seemingly perverse vote, which his liberal father regarded as an outrage, was in fact consistent with the experience of migration and loss his grandfather had endured.
If “The End of History?” was “Marxist” in its framework, Fukuyama said, his neocon friends had become “Leninist” in believing the U. S. had the power to hasten the movement of history through military force.
IV. A Curious Paradox In the last paragraph of “The End of History?” Fukuyama posited that history’s finale would be a “Very sad time,” in which the heroic exertions made on the road to attaining liberal democracy would give way to “The endless solving of technical problems, environmental concerns, and the satisfaction of sophisticated consumer demands.”
“Human life involves a curious paradox: It seems to require injustice, for the struggle against injustice is what calls forth what is highest in man,” Fukuyama wrote, before speculating about the emergence of men and women raised in the bosom of liberal democracy who grow bored with its very tranquility and come to “Struggle against that peace and prosperity, and against democracy.”

The orginal article.

Summary of “Francis Fukuyama Postpones the End of History”

In February, 1989, Francis Fukuyama gave a talk on international relations at the University of Chicago.
The “End of history” claim was picked up in the mainstream press, Fukuyama was profiled by James Atlas in the New York Times Magazine, and his article was debated in Britain and in France and translated into many languages, from Japanese to Icelandic.
To say, as Fukuyama does, that “The desire for status-megalothymia-is rooted in human biology” is the academic equivalent of palmistry.
Fukuyama resorts to this tactic because he wants to do with the desire for recognition what he did with liberalism in “The End of History?” He wants to universalize it.
“Human psychology is much more complex than the rather simpleminded economic model suggests,” Fukuyama concludes.
“Identity” can be read as a corrective to the position that Fukuyama staked out in “The End of History?” Universal liberalism isn’t impeded by ideology, like fascism or communism, but by passion.
What is odd about Fukuyama’s dilemma is that, in the philosophical source for his original theory about the end of history, recognition was not a problem.
As Fukuyama stated explicitly in “The End of History?,” he was adopting an interpretation of Hegel made in the nineteen-thirties by a semi-obscure intellectual adventurer named Alexandre Kojève.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Francis Fukuyama Postpones the End of History”

In February, 1989, Francis Fukuyama gave a talk on international relations at the University of Chicago.
The “End of history” claim was picked up in the mainstream press, Fukuyama was profiled by James Atlas in the New York Times Magazine, and his article was debated in Britain and in France and translated into many languages, from Japanese to Icelandic.
To say, as Fukuyama does, that “The desire for status-megalothymia-is rooted in human biology” is the academic equivalent of palmistry.
Fukuyama resorts to this tactic because he wants to do with the desire for recognition what he did with liberalism in “The End of History?” He wants to universalize it.
“Human psychology is much more complex than the rather simpleminded economic model suggests,” Fukuyama concludes.
“Identity” can be read as a corrective to the position that Fukuyama staked out in “The End of History?” Universal liberalism isn’t impeded by ideology, like fascism or communism, but by passion.
What is odd about Fukuyama’s dilemma is that, in the philosophical source for his original theory about the end of history, recognition was not a problem.
As Fukuyama stated explicitly in “The End of History?,” he was adopting an interpretation of Hegel made in the nineteen-thirties by a semi-obscure intellectual adventurer named Alexandre Kojève.

The orginal article.

Summary of “How philosophy helped one soldier on the battlefield”

Their approach of questioning everything, even the importance of the Western notion of ‘truth’, would have helped me to understand the situation better.
Later, reading Gray, Sigmund Freud, Herman Melville and Friedrich Nietzsche helped me to understand how the kidnappers came to be like that, and how we all have the capacity for extreme cruelty.
Reading the American philosopher Samuel Scheffler’s Death and the Afterlife a few years later helped me to understand why.
It helped me to understand that the military, with its focus on the mission, was essentially consequentialist.
As well as helping on the battlefield, I believe that philosophy can help in the aftermath of conflict.
Philosophy can help ex-soldiers understand what they are missing.
Not all philosophy is of much use to a soldier in action.
Philosophy can help us with this, though it is not a panacea.

The orginal article.

Summary of “‘The Americans’ Series Finale Oral History”

Weisberg: We had no idea how we were going to get there, and we didn’t know the other pieces that you see in the finale.
Rhys: It’s six years of everyone going, “When’s Stan going to catch them?” You know? is an enormous decision that happens in an incredibly fleeting moment.
Taylor: The last scene I shot for the whole entire series was when we call Henry.
Fields: The truth is that departure of Paige, exactly how it was going to turn out, we didn’t know.
We certainly didn’t know it was going to be on a train.
Long: We didn’t know in advance what song was going to go there.
So we were really trying to explore what was going to be in her heart, and what’s going to be on her unconscious as she makes this final journey.
Fields: I’d say that there is no scene in the history of The Americans that we spent more time working on in the editing room than the final scene of the two of them.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Stop Ending Your Speeches with ‘Any Questions’ and End With This Instead”

You got this…. Until the end.
If you’re planning to wrap up your presentation with a half-hearted call for “Any questions?” followed by a “Thank you” and a quick exit, then you haven’t planned your whole presentation.
If they’re going to remember the end, you need a finish that’s bigger than “Any questions?”.
Too many people end their presentations with a call for questions, which is a mistake.
Why? Because it leaves the audience in charge of your ending, when you want to be the one who decides the last words the audience hears.
You may be asking yourself, “If I don’t end with Q&A, how do I end?”.
You might even find that an audience member’s question brings up a novel idea or thoughtful approach you hadn’t considered, leading you to draw an updated conclusion.
Perhaps no section of a presentation is as important as the closing, since that’s the last thing your audience will hear.

The orginal article.