essay about most hated rule in the house

• Foundry VTT Modules
• Lair Magazine
• The Secret Art of Game Mastery
• Lairs & Legends
• Into the Fey
• Escape from the Fey
• 5e Rulesets
• Adventures for 5e and PF2
• Misc. GM Resources

• Lairs & Legends 2
• Into The Fey
• Free 5e Resources

Top 10 Worst D&D House Rules Ever

• May 02, 2024
• Posted by Janay Zeilstra

Written by Luke Hart

Today, we’re going to go over the top 10 absolute worst house rules in Dungeons & Dragons. See, I have an entire video series on house rules , and I thought that it might also be valuable to go over the things dungeon masters should consider not doing—because avoiding pitfalls is important, too.

Now, this list will include things that I personally have experienced as a player. However, I also pinged everyone in my community tab about the worst house rules they’ve experienced. So, I’ve included some particularly juicy—that is, horrendous—house rules from there, too.

By the way, running awesome 5e games with in-depth lore, deadly traps, and terrifying monsters doesn’t have to take hours of prep! My team and I published Lairs & Legends 2 and Loot & Lore 2 to give you everything you need. Hand-crafted by a team of professional game masters to make it as easy to use as possible, these two books are an anthology of game master resources to fuel your games for years to come.

Watch the video for this article below.

1. Critical Fumbles on a Natural 1 Attack Roll

Holy crap, it is amazing how much players hate, hate, hate critical fumbles. It doesn’t matter if you are using a stupid table to look up results or saying dumb stuff like “Your weapon flies out of your hand” or “Your weapon breaks.”

Yeah, let’s find a way to unevenly punish melee players over spellcaster players and unevenly punish the players (who usually get more attacks) over the enemies—not to mention how much it bogs the game down by having to roll on the tables and determine results.

I personally have never had players who enjoyed critical fumbles. In my experience, they are nearly universally hated by players. I did use them several years ago in my Sword Coast Guard game, and they didn’t last but three sessions before it became clear that we all hated them.

2. Re-rolling Your Character at Level 1 When They Die

Okay, look, dying and having to re-roll a character sucks enough for players. Many players just don’t like it. It is merely adding insult to injury to make them re-roll their level 16 character at level 1.

Now I get that this may be the old-school, gritty way of doing things. That’s great, and I can appreciate nostalgia about how folks used to do things back in the day as much as the next person. But I feel like today’s players may be just a wee bit different.

So if I die, I can live with that—I personally don’t mind it when my PC dies because it’s an opportunity for me to try out a different cool build I might have in mind—but please don’t make me start at level 1 again. It sucks for lots of actual game reasons, not just because I’m a special snowflake or something.

3. Screwing with the Experience Points System in Ways That Make It Unbalanced for Players

For instance, the worst way to tweak the XP system is to only award XP to the character who dealt the killing blow. So, that crowd-control wizard who makes your battles a crap ton easier via hold monster or hypnotic pattern or banishment or any number of amazing spells but rarely kills anything just gets the shaft?

Or just awarding experience points randomly or at the dungeon master’s discretion, often favoring certain players. Oh, the dungeon master is a thespian themselves and gives more XP to players who exhibit the same behavior? Or the DM loves combat and gives more XP to players who excel in that area.

No—pass, please. How about we don’t make D&D a competition between players, huh? Seriously, one of the things that distinguishes D&D from other table-top role-playing games and is a huge compelling gameplay component is that the players don’t compete with each other. Let’s not ruin that, shall we?

4. Permanent Injury Tables Triggered by Critical Hits or Similar Game Mechanics

Argh! These things are horrible, especially the ones in the Dungeon Master’s Guide . I mean, some of these injuries are so bad that you might as well just re-roll your character. A lost arm? A reduction to the bard’s charisma score? A permanent limp, reducing movement? I’m sorry, that stuff is crap.

5. Punishments for Not Roleplaying Your Alignment “Properly”

Come on. Let’s take one of the most contentious topics of D&D and weaponize it. Yeah, that’s great. I’m sure that will be fun.

What am I talking about? Well, the fact that almost no one can agree on what defines any particular alignment. That is, most folks have a different idea of what things like lawful good and chaotic good even mean. So, the chances are very high a dungeon master will have a different understanding of alignment than their players. And if in-game punishments are involved for not roleplaying your alignment, then players will usually end up screwed.

Either they get punished with loss of experience points or something similar, or they are forced to roleplay their character according to the DM’s definition of alignment. That effectively steals player agency—something I’ve stated before as something a dungeon master should avoid doing at all costs.

6. House Rules That Nerf Class Abilities or Core Game Mechanics

Now look, I’ll be the first to admit to being guilty of doing this—I know. However, I always strive to discuss these sorts of changes with my players first and then only change things when absolutely necessary.

For instance, my players and I have spoken about the spell Healing Spirit, and we universally agree that it’s horribly overpowered as written. The feat Elven Accuracy is another example.

The problem, as I see it, is when dungeon masters nerf things due to a lack of understanding of game mechanics or because they just don’t like them—particularly when they nerf things without first discussing what they perceive as the issue with their players. It’s always best to talk to players and see if you can reach a mutual agreement.

7. Rolling Ability Scores in Order

So, your first roll is your Strength, the second roll is your Dexterity, and so on. Now, I personally don’t have quite as high an aversion to this idea as others, but I do know that many, many players hate this.

Now, some dungeon masters will say that this will encourage your players to play classes that they ordinarily wouldn’t play. They may also appeal to nostalgia how back in the day this is how it was done.

You may have noticed this, but in general, I hate appealing to nostalgia just for nostalgia’s sake. Like, convince me with logical arguments and facts, not just some flighty “Well back in the day” statement. I mean, back in the day thousands of people died from polio every year, but none of us want that again, do we?

Anyway, the main problem with this house rule is that it prevents players from playing characters they actually want to play. Oh, you wanted to be a ranged fighter or a rogue? Tough luck. Your Dexterity is 8. And, you know what? Most players just don’t find that to be much fun.

8. Skill Checks Auto-succeed on Natural 20s

So, I suspect that, in part, this exists not because DMs make it a house rule but because they simply don’t understand the actual game rules. Only attack rolls are auto-success on natural 20s, not ability or skill checks.

Rolling a natural 20 on a Persuasion check will not allow me to convince the king to abdicate his throne, and rolling a natural 20 on a Stealth check will not allow me to hide from an enemy who’s staring directly at me while I have faerie fire outlining my form.

If an Arcana check DC is 25, the barbarian doesn’t magically know the secrets of arcane runes because they got lucky on a 5% chance. Simply put, some things are just not possible.

9. Any House Rule That Allows the Dungeon Master to Take Away Player Agency

I know this is a loose grouping rather than a specific rule, but I hear about lots of these. And, usually, they are made up on the spot by a capricious DM who just doesn’t like something—for instance, a dungeon master overruling a player’s actions because “That’s not what your character would do.” Who exactly should be the judge of what a player’s character would or would not do if not the player themselves?

10. Any House Rule That Only Favors the Enemies

For instance, ruling that enemies get infinite reactions to use on attacks of opportunity, but that players don’t get the same. The rule of thumb I follow in my games is that if it works for the dungeon master, it works for the players—and vice versa.

The Definitive 5e GM Resource Anthology!

Lairs & Legends 2 and Loot & Lore 2 are the ultimate 5e game master resource! These two massive books put an anthology of everything you need to run amazing games for YEARS at your fingertips.

• Over 30 Adventures
• 30 Stand-Alone Encounters
• More than 100 Monsters
• 6 New Rule Sets
• And much more!

These books are written to make running the game easy for new and veteran GMs. Each resource is built with intuitive formatting, clear wording, and evocative art. You’ll never again have to dig through dense paragraphs to find critical details you need during a live session.

These 5e resources are designed to scale to your needs; whether it’s a quick drag-and-drop trap to add some spice to your session or complete adventures that span levels 1 to 20. The sky’s the limit with what your games can become with Lairs & Legends 2 and Loot & Lore 2 .

• Adventure Ideas
• Drag and Drops
• Game Master How-To Articles
• Magic Items
• Random Encounters
• Random Tables

YOUR CART (0)

You don't have any items in your cart.

Special instructions for seller

Add a coupon.

What are you looking for?

Popular Searches:  Lair MagazineInto the FeyLairs & LegendsLoot & LoreThe Secret Art of Game MasteryMap PacksAdventures  

Which Writing Rules Do Writers Hate?

American writer Jonathan Franzen attracted a lot of ire not long ago over a piece he penned for LitHub entitled ’10 Rules of Writing for Novelists.’

It’s his use of the word ‘rules’ that’s got everyone’s goat. If there’s one thing I’ve learned while studying the supposed rules of writing it’s that there aren’t any rules that can’t be broken.

Yes, there are basic laws of grammar, storytelling, dialogue, plot and the like, but beyond that, particularly when it comes to styles and approaches to writing prose , it’s all theory and preference.

Time and time again writers have broken established writing rules with brilliant effect. Franzen should have known better.

When somebody suggests a rule of writing, or a rule of writing a poem, for instance, I see it as their way of offering advice on the practices that have suited them best.

Is it arrogant to call them creative writing rules or writing rules for good writing? Probably.

If you’ve been in this game a while you’ve no doubt seen plenty of these lists. Elmore Leonard’s 10 rules of writing springs to mind. So too Strunk and White’s rules of writing. And, of course, George Orwell’s rules of writing.

The danger is for new writers, who in their sponge-like stage of absorption, can read misleading rules for writing a book, and then grow frustrated down the line when readers and editors tell them otherwise.

I suppose that’s a lesson in itself, one all writers have to learn— what may work for one writer may not work for another.

It was obvious that these so-called rules of writing espoused by Franzen had touched a nerve with many writers. I wanted to find out why exactly.

So I put the question to writers. I hosted polls over a couple of days in dozens of online writing groups on Facebook and received a total of 199 responses. Not a great sample size but there were lots of insightful comments too, so the exercise was a worthwhile one.

This is what I asked them:

What writing rules do you detest most? What writing rules do you find yourself breaking often? What writing rules do you not see the point of? Which writing rules do you regard as outdated and no longer relevant?

The Results

Since tables aren’t much fun, I made a little infographic. Just click below to download.

Select A Writing Rule

• Never use the passive voice
• Avoid excessive use of adjectives
• Never use an adverb
• Never start a sentence with…
• Show don’t tell
• Write everyday
• Avoid flashbacks
• Don’t info dump
• Avoid using ‘that’
• Don’t end sentences on a preposition

I’ve also recorded a podcast on this very subject for my fantasy writing podcast, The Fantasy Writers’ Toolshed . Listen on Spotify!

1. Never Use The Passive Voice

Sitting proudly at the peak is the rule against using the passive voice.

Going off my dealings with the passive voice, it can be a tricky area of grammar to fully understand, and that’s not the fault of writers.

Let’s see what writers had to say about it:

“Passive voice. I hate the generic “never use passive voice” advice, it’s such bull. Passive voice has a place, it’s just plain lazy to simply avoid it rather than learn it, it’s a tool like any other.” Anni Davison

“Passive voice is definitely the one I struggle with the most, I usually run my articles and books through Hemingway before submitting to try and cut some of it out. It just feels natural to write/talk that way.” Samantha Davis

“I argued with my teachers as a little kid over passive voice. I don’t subscribe to that “rule.” Never did. Who is anyone to tell a writer how to write and craft their own sentence? It’s insane and yes, sometimes it does sound better. Put down the red pen and just read and experience the story.” Laura Jones

“The one that is most troublesome for me is the “don’t ever use passive voice” rule, because it ultimately comes from a misunderstanding of what we use passive voice for in our language. The idea that “active voice” sentences are “active” and “passive voice” sentences are not is flawed. If I write “Jim threw the ball” or “the ball was thrown by Jim,” both sentences are equally active. Both show a ball being thrown. The main difference between the two sentences is the subject, and that is the critical point to consider. When an editor starts red-lining passive voice sentences in a paragraph, what they often end up doing is replacing a single subject for many, in turn making the passage more convoluted and harder to follow.” JM Williams

If you want even more help with this particular issue, check out my passive voice checker and converter here. It’s free to use and helps you identify passive sentences and then convert them into sentences that use the active voice. 

2. Avoid Excessive Use of Adjectives

This is one that’s bandied about quite a lot—refrain from using adjectives. They do you no good. Supposedly.

I’ve looked into this rule quite a bit and what I’ve come to learn is that it refers more to how adjectives are used.

Click here to discover more approaches and details on how to use adjectives.

3. Never Use An Adverb

Adverbs have a similar reputation to that of their cousin, the adjective. I’ve heard many a writer exclaim their annoyance at reading the advice on adverbs in Stephen King’s On Writing only to then read one of his novels and find his story peppered with them.

The answer, I believe, is the same as with adjectives. It’s how you use the adverb.

4. Never Start A Sentence With…

I don’t see this writers rule thrown about too often, yet it’s scored pretty high on the list. The suggestion ‘begin sentences with conjunctions’ ties into this too.

It’s a ‘rule’ I’m aware of, but having read so many fantastic and award-winning writers who break it consistently I’ve come to see it as obsolete. Bollocks to it. Start a sentence any way you want.

5. Show Don’t Tell

I expected this creative writing rule to score a little higher on the list due to the number of complaints I see about it. Like some of the other rules of writing noted above, it seems to be how you use it.

“People parrot “show don’t tell” nowadays, not seeming to realize that there are parts that SHOULD be told. Otherwise, one’s protagonists just grimace, tremble, shudder, flush and twitch their way through the entire story (which gets tiring as well as ludicrous). And sometimes there IS a third alternative to either ‘telling’ or ‘showing’ — subtext!” Marya Miller

““Show, don’t tell!” (Yes, they do always seem to be shouting when they spout these so-called rules.) I’ve seen some rather extreme examples of this: “Don’t tell us that his car is red; show us.” *rolls eyes* How are we supposed to do that when all we have are the words?” Thomas Weaver

Click Here To See The Best Show Don’t Tell Examples For Writers

6. Write Everyday

This is one that often gets bandied about. Most of the time it comes from those fortunate enough not to have to work 40+ hours a week.

The reality for many people is that there isn’t enough hours in the day to work and write. Some days anyway. There are always windows of opportunity, and it’s up to us to seize them.

So when you come across somebody saying you’ll never be a writer if you don’t write everyday, or if they tell you it’s how you become a good writer, remember it’s quality not quantity .

It’s therefore unsurprising that this supposed writing rule scored so highly. 

7. Avoid Flashbacks

This is an interesting one to crop up on this list of the most hated rules of writing. Flashbacks are a common feature in many books, bestselling and popular ones too. And they can take a variety of forms, from full chapters to snippets of memories.

I’m going to say outright that I like a flashback—if done well.

Herein lies the issue. Badly done flashbacks can lose readers. If the story is progressing well, tension is high and characters engaging, the last thing any reader wants is to pull away from the narrative to dip back in time.

Flashbacks that info dump—we’ll come to this next—are oft complained about. They serve little purpose other than to shovel backstory forcefully down our gullets.

Flashbacks need to serve a purpose. An exploration of a character’s past. The revealing of a significant detail. In short, it ought to develop the story in some way. In order to go forwards, we have to go back.

8. Don’t Info Dump

Info dumping is a common complaint amongst readers—myself included—so it’s nice to see only a smattering of my fellow writers voting for it.

As things go, this is one of the good rules of writing. Info dumping is often lazy, with backstory delivered in unimaginative or uninteresting ways.

The typical example is a lengthy prologue that tells you the history of the world—like the opening to Lord of the Rings where Cate Blanchett is yabbering on for ages, only ten times worse.

Or you get the overly descriptive character details. Every facet of this person’s life is explained before they even say a word. You end up hating the poor prick before he even does anything.

What can be said in favour of informational dumpage? It’s necessary in parts of our stories. There are times when lots has happened and unanswered questions have built up. At that point, it’s time for a good old spilling of the beans around the fire. But be sure not to give all of it away too soon. Readers may get bored.

9. Avoid Using ‘That’

Linked to some of the writing rules above, to avoid using the word ‘that’ is again related to one of overuse. It’s not to say that it can never be used. Just not as much as we often do. The reality is, ‘that’ often has a place in many sentences.

‘That’ is necessary in some sentences, such as when a clause begins with particular subordinating conjunctions, like before, in addition to, and while. An example:

• He gave up saying that he would take out the dog.

A good way to cut out ‘that’ is to check sentences that contain it and see how they read without the word. If they sound natural and intelligible, you can probably cut it. Crucially, the meaning of the sentence shouldn’t alter. An example:

• I wished she would come home.

You could add ‘that’ in there, but it’s also unnecessary.

10. Don’t End Sentences On A Preposition

What is a preposition you may ask? It’s a word that governs and usually precedes a noun or pronoun that expresses a relation to another word or part in the clause. That might sound like flux capacitors to you, so here’s an example:

• The man in the field.
• The conductor on the train.

It’s not an error to end a sentence with a preposition word, like ‘in’, but it’s regarded as less formal. Perhaps fitting better in the realms of emails and texts. It’s also fine to use when the preposition forms part of an informal phrase. An example:

• A solid piece of kit like this is hard to come by

There’s rules?

Here’s an extra one for you. It scored quite highly and lots of people had something to say about it.

Yes, there are some rules , one of which is broken by this very suggestion. ‘There are rules?’

Let’s set the record straight, or as straight as it can be.

What do other writers think?

“I hate rules. Advice is cool. Learn tools and when, how, and why to use them. Strive to be a great writer and write with intention. But don’t let anybody tell you there is some set of rules that dictates good writing and separates it from that bad, ‘cos that’s just bullshit and it’s going to steer you wrong.” Kai Kiet Pieza

“I don’t think it was Franzen’s use of the word “rules” that annoyed people so much as the incredibly stupid advice he gave.” DL Mackenzie. In response, Janette Collins says:

“Honestly I do have a problem with the use of the word rules. Creativity should not be governed by rules.”

“[Franzen] penned this for The Guardian almost a decade ago. In that time he’s also published two novels, two collections of essays and a translation of Karl Kraus’ memoirs. So whether you choose to pour scorn on them or not, they certainly work for him.” Stevie Cherry.

“Know the rules so you know when and how to break them. Then break them with malice. That’s the best writing advice I’ve received.” Mary Caelsto-Lenker

“Thou MUST learn thy rules… that thou mayst know when they may be broken to the greatest effect.” Aaron Gallagher

“I before E except after C has been disproved by science. Outside of that, read Strunk and White’s The Elements of Style, Rules and guidelines are there to help us write. If they get in the way, let them slip. But if it feels or reads wrong, perhaps a look at the ‘rules’ will help.” Frank Booker

“I liked all 10 rules. If you can’t get over the word “rules” that’s your own problem (not you specifically OP). They’re obviously meant as guidelines, and they’re good and useful guidelines to follow unless you know how and why you’re breaking them.” Bobby Lee

“The 10 rules are exactly what I have learned over the years. None of them are always true, and bending them is a lot of fun. Part of the art of writing is knowing about them and understanding why these guidelines exist, working with them when it helps the prose, and knowing when you don’t have to listen.” Katharine Southworth

More Tools and Guides On The Rules of Writing

Thank you so much for checking out this research piece on the most hated rules of writing. I’ve found the process insightful and I hope you have too.

Below you can find links to some more writing tools and writing guides you may find useful.

• Orwellian Prose
• Showing Instead of Telling
• Writing tips
• How to write romance scenes
• How to format a manuscript
• Mental health in fantasy books
• 8 ways to kickstart your writing career
• What is characterization?
• How to write strong female characters
• How to edit
• What is StoryOrigin?
• How to plot a story
• What is passive voice?
• 4 ways to begin writing a novel
• How to plan a story
• How to plan a novel
• Tips on Grammar Punctuation and Style – a guide by Harvard University
• Tips On Improving Your Writing – a Guide by the Berkley Student Learning Centre
• Writing For The Web – Some useful tips on writing by the UK government

Writing Rules FAQ

This question often relates to George Orwell’s rules of writing, which are: 1. Never use a metaphor, simile or another figure of speech which you see often in print. 2. Avoid long words where short ones suffice. 3. If it’s possible to cut out a word, always do so. 4. Avoid using the passive voice where you can use the active. 5. Avoid complex and jargonistic words if you can think of an everyday equivalent. These rules were first mentioned in Orwell’s essay, Politics and the English Language

Good writing is, above all, clear and widely understandable. If most people cannot make sense of the information you’re trying to convey, the writing becomes redundant. Short and concise sentences can help you achieve clarity, as well as avoiding jargonistic words.

The best way to start a piece of creative writing is to sit your arse in the chair and write. Remove distractions and allow yourself to focus. It may help to start with planning. Create your characters, determine what they want and the conflicting obstacles that stand in their path to getting it. The act of planning often sparks ideas and inspiration, and before you know it, you’ll be a few hundred words in.

Examples of creative writing include novels, novellas, novelettes, short stories, flash fiction, microfiction, poetry, plays, scriptwriting, screenplays, essays, journals, blogs, reviews, memoirs, speeches, lectures and songs.

Creative writing is the process of producing written content which displays invention, imagination and often originality. It is often distinguished from the likes of journalistic and academic writing, which focuses on objective facts and information.

Creative writing has many benefits for our mental health and wellbeing. It can give us purpose and focus, a means to channel our energies into. It also enables us to complete projects, the process of which can deliver great satisfaction and confidence. Creative writing can also be therapeutic. It allows us to tackle and explore problems in a reflective and deeper manner.

• Recent Posts

• Mastering Dialogue: The Very Best Tips - January 12, 2024
• The Proven Method Of Writing Short Story Cover Letters - November 10, 2023
• Tips, Advice And Guidance On Writing Villains And Antagonists - November 7, 2023

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

No thanks, close this box

• Apr 4, 2021

Is It Better For A Ruler To Be Feared Than Loved?

In his book, The Prince, originally written in 1513, Niccolò Machiavelli considered whether it is better for a ruler to be feared than loved. He argued that although one might wish to be both, it is difficult to unite both traits in one person, and given the limitation of choosing only one approach, rulers should wish to be feared. This book has informed many new princes and royals on how to best preserve power. In particular, this book provided a handbook to Florence’s Medici Family (that had returned to power just a year before its publication), on ruling and the exercise of power.

Before analysing whether it is better for a ruler to be loved or feared, it is important to describe what it means for something to be ‘better’ or ‘worse’ for a ruler. This essay will define a ruler’s interests in terms of whatever best allows them to preserve power for as long as possible. Note that we could understand Machiavelli's statement in terms of whatever best allows a ruler to execute their office effectively regardless of the length of tenure. Since the two do not always pull in the same direction, this interpretation might have led us to different conclusions about the optimal style of rulership. I shall focus on the preservation of power as the primary end. It is also important to ask what exactly ‘fear’ means here – who is doing the fearing, and why are they afraid? This essay identifies two different sets of actors that a ruler must engage with – fellow politicians, and the general public. It will argue that the perfect situation for a ruler is to be loved by his people but feared by his political rivals – a combination that has worked well for many rulers throughout history, making them less vulnerable to popular uprisings on the one hand, and political coups on the other. It also argues that in addition to love and fear, rulers should seek to gain respect among their subjects. Lastly, it examines the modern-day implications of Machiavelli’s arguments in the corporate world.

In my view, Machiavelli was wrong that it is better for a ruler to simply be feared than loved – the perfect situation for a ruler is actually far more complex; rulers should seek to be loved by their people but feared by their political rivals. Machiavelli said that as men are generally fickle and afraid of danger, they will support a prince that they love only when it is convenient to do so, and betray them when trouble arrives. He argued, therefore, that ruling by fear is a better way of ensuring loyalty, as it means that people will always be obedient to a prince to avoid the risk of punishment. While he did say that ideally a ruler should be both loved and feared, but that this is difficult to achieve, this argument does not apply here. Though it may be difficult to be loved and feared by the same group of people, it is possible and effective for a ruler to be loved by the population but feared by his political rivals.

Contrary to Machiavelli’s beliefs, I believe that fear among the general populace actually increases a ruler’s risk of facing unrest. Machiavelli’s premise that people will always obey a ruler they fear to avoid punishment is incorrect. Even if this premise holds in the short term, in the longer term, rule by fear fosters hate and a desire for vengeance and is not a sustainable way of maintaining support among a state’s citizens. Arguably, rule by fear may actually increase a ruler’s risk of facing revolution/opposition. Several examples throughout history give empirical evidence for this. For example, though the tactics of repression and terror used in the USSR, and particularly by Stalin, allowed the Soviets to maintain power throughout much of the 20th century, citizens living under the Iron Curtain were disillusioned. This manifested itself in uprisings such as the Hungarian Revolution in 1956, and the Prague Spring in 1968, and the eventual dissolution of the Soviet Union itself by 1991. This shows that the resentment among a population ruled by fear eventually makes such rule untenable in the long term. Rulers should therefore seek to be loved by their people to maintain security from popular revolt.

At the same time, however, rulers should seek to be feared by their political opponents. Fear by political opponents is an effective means of maintaining power. For example, though rulers like Adolf Hitler and Mao Zedong committed atrocious acts while in power, and should not at all be looked up to, they were undeniably effective in maintaining power. The reason that they were able to do this so effectively was due to the fear that they created amongst their political rivals. Creating fear among rivals is a way of ensuring that they do not attempt to undermine your power, and do not attempt coups. A ruler should thus seek to be loved by their population but feared by their political rivals.

It is important to recognise that though Machiavelli draws a helpful comparison between two extreme forms of leadership (being feared vs being loved), it would be wrong of us to infer that these are the only two ways of ruling. In reality, a ruler can simply be well-respected and trusted to carry out his mandate effectively to best promote a state’s wellbeing. Respect is a vital weapon in a ruler’s arsenal – respect differs to fear or love in that it concerns a ruler’s ability to carry out their office effectively, rather than anything to do with their personality. In my view, rulers should seek to be respected and have the confidence of their contemporaries. Respect is vital for a ruler to keep power as ultimately, they need people to trust them to do what is best for the nation. If a ruler does not have the trust of their subjects to look after their people's interests, they will ultimately lose power eventually.

While we can at first analyse Machiavelli’s position in its historical context, we should also recognise that this same historical context limits Machiavelli’s conclusions in their scope. Many of his arguments are far less relevant today given the rise of democracy – whether people vote for candidates that they love, or respect, or simply even the candidate they view as the ‘lesser of two evils’, people certainly do not vote for the candidate they fear. This is reflected in the rise of personality politics – figures such as Donald Trump, Boris Johnson, Narendra Modi and Vladimir Putin seek to build strong followings based on their personalities – they seek to gain political support through love among their voter bases, not fear.

Additionally, Machiavelli seems to ignore the fact that different styles of ruling vary in efficacy depending on the political context. A glaring example of this nuance is peacetime vs wartime. During times of war, perhaps the most effective leader is one who is ruthless, pragmatic, and unafraid to be threatening or devious in order to keep their nation together and achieve military victory. Such a leader sounds like they may well be feared by some. In times of peace and prosperity, however, an effective ruler is likely one who can foster unity among a population, inspire others and command respect. Therefore, when analysing Machiavelli’s arguments, we should understand that his conclusions apply within the political context that he wrote in.

It is also important to note that in today’s day and age, politics is not the only context where Machiavelli’s arguments are relevant. Globalisation and economic development have occurred to an extent where mega-corporations are now equally as, if not more important as governments. Therefore, CEOs of the biggest companies today, especially tech companies such as Google, Facebook, Amazon and Tesla/SpaceX, face the exact same choice of leadership by love or fear as politicians in the 15th and 16th centuries like Cesare Borgia and the Medici. I think the debate crosses over quite symmetrically from politics to business, and in the same way that politicians should not seek to be feared by their people, business leaders should seek to be loved and respected by their employees. A toxic culture of fear in corporations would stifle innovation and development, as workers would be hesitant to question the ideas of their seniors. Additionally, a workplace culture of fear would be a hostile one to work in – this would result in excessive turnover rates, as workers grow increasingly uncomfortable, resulting in a loss of highly skilled and knowledgeable workers. Furthermore, this could even result in outcomes such as increased propensity among employees to go on strike, and whistleblowing by employees about such poor conditions to the media. Therefore, corporate leaders should also not try to be feared, but instead seek respect and love.

In conclusion, Machiavelli was not entirely right that it is better for a ruler to be feared than loved. Rulers should instead try to be loved by their people but feared by their political rivals – this helps them to avoid popular uprisings, while also avoiding coups from their rivals. While love and fear are important tools for a ruler to utilise at various stages, rulers must also look to gain respect among their people that they will carry out their office effectively. It is also important to recognise that Machiavelli’s arguments are limited in scope due to the historical context in which they were written – e.g. his arguments do not particularly apply to democracies or varying political contexts. Perhaps most crucial in analysing Machiavelli’s arguments today are their implications for corporate leaders. In an age where many corporations are reaching, if not exceeding, the power of many governments, it is vital that CEOs constantly have their leadership style in mind, and avoid creating a toxic culture of fear in their workplace.

Recent Posts

On "Bidenomics"

Some Thoughts On Economic Growth

The What And Why Of Fascist Tendencies In Western Politics

clock This article was published more than  5 years ago

Why homeowners hate their HOAs

Whether you live in a condominium, townhouse or single-family house, chances are you have had experience with a condo or homeowners' association. Approximately 69 million Americans live in a home within a homeowners’ association, according to the Community Associations Institute , or about 21 percent of the U.S. population in 2016.

Americans have a love/hate relationship with their HOAs. Even among those who actively participate on the board, just 57 percent said they love their HOA, according to a survey by InsuranceQuotes.com . Thirty-three percent of those who have never served on an HOA board said they hate them.

The survey also found a generational divide: 52 percent of baby boomers love their HOA, compared with 31 percent of Gen Xers and 39 percent of millennials. One reason for the lack of love: HOA meetings are known for argumentative behavior. Those arguments are most common at condo association meetings, where 73 percent of respondents said they witnessed an argument, compared to 41 percent of townhouse owners and 55 percent of single-family homeowners.

Homeowners association rules governing exterior changes cannot be ignored

The rulemaking authority of HOAs are both loved and hated by homeowners. The top three most-hated rules include those applying to lawn appearance, parking regulations and pet restrictions. Yet at the same time, the three most-wanted types of regulations are about improved parking, improved noise regulations and requiring residents to clean up after their pets.

There is a gender gap when it comes to the most common complaints about living in an HOA. Men complained most about their neighbors smoking and being noisy, while women complained most about their neighbors’ lawn appearance, pets and home appearance.

To see the report, click here.

• < Previous

Home > Faculty Scholarship > Scholarly Works > 359

Scholarly Works

The embarrassing rule against perpetuities.

Peter A. Appel , University of Georgia School of Law Follow

Journal of Legal Education, Vol. 54, No. 2 (June 2004), pp. 264-282

The Rule Against Perpetuities offers an opportunity for those who teach property or trusts and estates to review some of the major schools of jurisprudence and how accurately or inaccurately those schools characterize law and legal development. At first blush, the idea that the rule can be used to advance a student's mastery or consideration of theory seems absurd. But this essay will outline an innovative approach to the rule that allows those who teach it to mix theory in with the difficult problems that the rule creates.

The modern pedagogical approach to the rule treats it as an embarrassment -- the difficult family problem that is not discussed in public. Teachers see it as bad medicine that must be dispensed and swallowed quickly, and different teachers vary on how much of the rule's technicalities they think the student should master (or at least endure). Students share the bad medicine view of the rule. Ask students what subject within property they hated most, and most will answer that it was the Rule Against Perpetuities. Indeed, it might rank as the most-hated doctrine studied in the first year of law school (although the Erie doctrine might give it a run for its money). Arcane in origin, difficult to understand and apply, unintuitive, and seemingly random in its effect, the rule brings together many of the difficulties that students have in adjusting to the rigors of legal study. Students joke about it, have nightmares about it, and learn through rumor that the rule is so complicated that, when they are in practice, they will not be held liable for malpractice if they draft an instrument that is subsequently held void because of the rule. Graduating third-year students frequently say-in all seriousness-that they will gladly spot the bar examiners any perpetuities problems and try to gain credit elsewhere on the exam rather than try to relearn the rule. In sum, students cannot understand why they have to endure the rule except as some kind of horrible historical accident of which they are the most recent victims. They certainly cannot explain what the rule means or does not mean from a jurisprudential standpoint-if ever they consider or are invited by their teachers to contemplate jurisprudence.

Of course, some might question the propriety of introducing jurisprudence into the first year. Some people believe that the first year should consist primarily of building-block courses, i.e., courses that introduce students to basic legal rules that will appear in private practice and on the bar exam. Others believe that the first year should introduce students to legal skills or to legal reasoning and schools of jurisprudence more generally, giving the students a broader view of law as a whole before they leap into a specific advanced area. These approaches are not mutually exclusive, and teachers often use basic courses in the first year as an introduction to a school or several schools of jurisprudence along with an introduction to doctrine and skills. The typical courses offered in the first year lend themselves to this approach, and Property is no exception. For example, nuisance provides good material to introduce students to the Coase theorem and law and economics; marital property law provides good material to introduce feminist jurisprudence; zoning provides good material to illustrate concepts in public choice theory. Textbooks for Property offer the teacher tools for taking this approach to introducing jurisprudence. The Dukeminier and Krier text has an excerpt of Harold Demsetz's economic account of the development of private property (along with critiques of it); Joseph Singer's text offers a good overview of the law-and-economics approach to nuisance law, as well as a critique of that approach; and the Cribbet text begins with two chapters devoted to different views of what constitutes property and what are the attributes of property.

Once the text hits the Rule Against Perpetuities, however, theory apparently stops, and I suspect that theory stops in classroom instruction as well. Property texts attempt to streamline presentation of the rule more through problems than through cases. Most property teachers gear their teaching of the rule to its basic mechanics, simply to get their students through the material, prepare them for the questions that they might face on the bar exam, and thus help them avoid embarrassment. Because of its complexity, the rule has generated its own set of specialized secondary study materials simply to explain how the rule works. Students can use CALI exercises or buy supplemental texts, workbooks, flashcards, outlines, or sample problems, to help them through these rough waters, all in an effort to avoid embarrassment on the final exam or on the bar exam. Property teachers whose primary field is not property or trusts and estates might also hew closely to the text and prepared problems to avoid being embarrassed themselves because they do not know the answer to a variation on one of the problems.

There is, however, another deeper embarrassment that the rule creates: no major school of jurisprudence can comprehensively explain the origins of the rule, why such a complicated rule continues to persist, why the rule does not appear in jurisdictions other than those with an English common law heritage but why it does not appear in all of those, and why it has not been abolished or reformed until recently, and why reform or abandonment has occurred where it has occurred and when it has occurred. Each school of jurisprudence may be able to answer one or more of the preceding questions, but none provides a comprehensive explanation for the existence and persistence of this complicated conundrum. The rule thus provides property teachers an opportunity to invite their students to take a step back from staring into the abyss of perpetuities problems and consider different theoretical attempts to define why the law looks the way it does and whether different schools of theory accurately capture the entire picture. The Rule Against Perpetuities might embarrass not just law professors and law students; it might also embarrass schools of legal thought.

In this essay I start by briefly describing the history of the rule, the standard problems that students confront, and some of the places where the rule is found geographically. The conclusions of this discussion are that the rule is fairly incoherent from a policy perspective and that it has not been widely adopted except in portions of the British Commonwealth and the United States. I then identify a few modern schools of jurisprudence -- specifically law and economics, public choice theory, critical legal/race/feminist studies, the theory of legal transplants, and comparative institutional analysis -- and show how each fails to explain the rule comprehensively.

Repository Citation

Peter A. Appel, The Embarrassing Rule Against Perpetuities (2004), Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/fac_artchop/359

Since September 26, 2008

Included in

Legal Writing and Research Commons

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS
• Collections
• Disciplines
• Recent Additions
• Activity by Year
• Faculty Profiles
• Law Library
• Archive-It Georgia Law

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright UGA Non-Discrimination Policy UGA Privacy Policy

Are White Women Better Now?

What anti-racism workshops taught us

This article was featured in the One Story to Read Today newsletter. Sign up for it here .

W e had to correct her, and we knew how to do it by now. We would not sit quietly in our white-bodied privilege, nor would our corrections be given apologetically or packaged with niceties. There I was, one of about 30 people attending a four-day-long Zoom seminar called “The Toxic Trends of Whiteness,” hosted by the group Education for Racial Equity.

An older white woman whom I’ll call Stacy had confessed to the group that she was ashamed of being white, and that she hoped in her next life she wouldn’t be white anymore. This provided us with a major learning moment. One participant began by amping herself up, intoning the concepts we’d been taught over the past two days: “Grounding, rooting, removing Bubble Wrap.” Then she got into it. “What I heard you say about wanting to come back as a dark-skinned person in your next life was racist, because as white people we don’t have the luxury of trying on aspects of people of color.”

“Notice how challenging that was,” our facilitator, Carlin Quinn, said. “That’s what getting your reps in looks like.”

Another woman went next, explaining that Stacy seemed to see people of color as better or more desirable, that her statement was “an othering.” Quinn prompted her to sum it up in one sentence: “When you said that you wish you would come back in your next life as a dark-skinned person, I experienced that as racist because …”

“That was racist because it exoticized Black people.”

“Great,” Quinn said. She pushed for more from everyone, and more came. Stacy’s statement was romanticizing . It was extractive . It was erasing . Stacy sat very still. Eventually we finished. Stacy thanked everyone, her voice thin.

The seminar would culminate with a talk from Robin DiAngelo, the most prominent anti-racist educator working in America. I had signed up because I was curious about her teachings, which had suddenly become so popular. DiAngelo’s 2018 book, White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism , had been a best seller for years by the time I joined the toxic whiteness group in May 2021. But during the heat of the Black Lives Matter protests, her influence boomed. She was brought in to advise Democratic members of the House of Representatives. Coca-Cola, Disney, and Lockheed Martin sent their employees through DiAngelo-inspired diversity trainings; even the defense company Raytheon launched an anti-racism DEI program.

In the DiAngelo doctrine, the issue was not individual racists doing singular bad acts. All white people are racist, because racism is structural. To fix one’s inherent racism requires constant work, and it requires white people to talk about their whiteness. Seminars like hers exploded as anti-racism was shifted from a project of changing laws and fighting systems into a more psychological movement: something you did within yourself. It was therapeutic. It wasn’t about elevating others so much as about deconstructing yourself in hopes of eventually deconstructing the systems around you.

Read: Abolish DEI statements

Anti-racism courses are less popular today. This may in part be because more people have become willing to question the efficacy of corporate DEI programs, but it’s surely also because their lessons now show up everywhere. In March at UCLA Medical School, during a required course, a guest speaker had the first-year medical students kneel and pray to “Mama Earth” before saying that medicine was “white science,” as first reported by The Washington Free Beacon . The course I took was just a preview of what’s come to be expected in workplaces and schools all over the country.

DiAngelo and her fellow thinkers are right in many ways. The economic fallout of structural racism persists in this country—fallout from rules, for example, about where Black people could buy property, laws that for generations have influenced who is rich and who is poor. The laws may be gone, but plenty of racists are left. And the modern anti-racist movement is right that we all probably do have some racism and xenophobia in us. The battle of modernity and liberalism is fighting against our tribal natures and animal selves.

I went into the workshop skeptical that contemporary anti-racist ideology was helpful in that fight. I left exhausted and emotional and, honestly, moved. I left as the teachers would want me to leave: thinking a lot about race and my whiteness, the weight of my skin. But telling white people to think about how deeply white they are, telling them that their sense of objectivity and individualism are white, that they need to stop trying to change the world and focus more on changing themselves … well, I’m not sure that has the psychological impact the teachers are hoping it will, let alone that it will lead to any tangible improvement in the lives of people who aren’t white.

M uch of what I learned in “The Toxic Trends of Whiteness” concerned language. We are “white bodies,” Quinn explained, but everyone else is a “body of culture.” This is because white bodies don’t know a lot about themselves, whereas “bodies of culture know their history. Black bodies know.”

The course began with easy questions (names, what we do, what we love), and an icebreaker: What are you struggling with or grappling with related to your whiteness? We were told that our answers should be “as close to the bone as possible, as naked, as emotionally revealing.” We needed to feel uncomfortable.

One woman loved gardening. Another loved the sea. People said they felt exhausted by constantly trying to fight their white supremacy. A woman with a biracial child said she was scared that her whiteness could harm her child. Some expressed frustration. It was hard, one participant said, that after fighting the patriarchy for so long, white women were now “sort of being told to step aside.” She wanted to know how to do that without feeling resentment. The woman who loved gardening was afraid of “being a middle-aged white woman and being called a Karen.”

A woman who worked in nonprofits admitted that she was struggling to overcome her own skepticism. Quinn picked up on that: How did that skepticism show up? “Wanting to say, ‘Prove it.’ Are we sure that racism is the explanation for everything?”

John McWhorter: The dehumanizing condescension of White Fragility

She was nervous, and that was good, Quinn said: “It’s really an important gauge, an edginess of honesty and vulnerability—like where it kind of makes you want to throw up.”

One participant was a diversity, equity, and inclusion manager at a consulting firm, and she was struggling with how to help people of color while not taking up space as a white person. It was hard to center and decenter whiteness at the same time.

A woman from San Francisco had started crying before she even began speaking. “I’m here because I’m a racist. I’m here because my body has a trauma response to my own whiteness and other people’s whiteness.” A woman who loved her cats was struggling with “how to understand all the atrocities of being a white body.” Knowing that her very existence perpetuated whiteness made her feel like a drag on society. “The darkest place I go is thinking it would be better if I weren’t here. It would at least be one less person perpetuating these things.”

T he next day we heard from DiAngelo herself. Quinn introduced her as “transformative for white-bodied people across the world.” DiAngelo is quite pretty, and wore a mock turtleneck and black rectangular glasses. She started by telling us that she would use the term people of color , but also that some people of color found the term upsetting. She would therefore vary the terms she used, rotating through imperfect language. Sometimes people of color , other times racialized , to indicate that race is not innate and rather is something that has been done to someone. Sometimes she would use the acronym BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, people of color), but she would then make a conscious grammatical mistake: “If I say ‘BIPOC,’ I find that’s a kind of harsh acronym. I usually add people at the end to humanize it a bit, even though grammatically that’s not correct,” she said.

Language is a tricky thing for the movement. The idea is that you should be open and raw when you speak, but you can get so much wrong. It’s no wonder that even Robin DiAngelo herself is worried. (At one point she recommended a book by Reni Eddo-Lodge—“a Black Brit,” DiAngelo said. For a moment she looked scared. “I hope that’s not an offensive term.” Quinn chimed in to say she thought it was okay, but DiAngelo looked introspective. “It sounds harsh. The Brit part sounded harsh.”)

DiAngelo wanted to remind us that she is white. She emphasized the wh —, giving the word a lushness and intensity. “I’m very clear today that I am wh ite, that I have a wh ite worldview. I have a wh ite frame of reference. I move through the world with a wh ite experience.”

She introduced some challenges. First was white people’s “lack of humility”: “If you are white and you have not devoted years, years—not that you read some books last summer—to sustained study, struggle, and work and practice and mistake making and relationship building, your opinions while you have them are necessarily uninformed and superficial.”

“Challenge No. 2 is the precious ideology of individualism, the idea that every one of us is unique and special.”

She prepared us for what would come next: “I will be generalizing about white people.” She was sharing her screen and showed us an image of middle-aged white women: “This is the classic board of a nonprofit.” She threw up a picture of high-school students in a local paper with the headline “Outstanding Freshmen Join Innovative Teacher-Education Program.” Almost all the teenagers were white. “This education program was not and could not have been innovative. Our educational system is probably one of the most efficient, effective mechanisms for the reproduction of racial inequality.” Lingering on the picture, she asked, “Do you feel the weight of that whiteness?”

From the September 2021 issue: Robin DiAngelo and the problem with anti-racist self-help

Another image. It was a white man. “I don’t know who that is,” she said. “I just Googled white guy , but most white people live segregated lives.”

When someone calls a white person out as racist, she told us, the white person will typically deny it. “Denying, arguing, withdrawing, crying. ‘I don’t understand.’ Seeking forgiveness. ‘I feel so bad, I feel so bad. Tell me you still love me.’” She paused. “Emotions are political. We need to build our stamina to endure some shame, some guilt,” she said. Quinn broke in to say that intentions are the province of the privileged. But consequences are the province of the subjugated.

Someone who has integrated an anti-racist perspective, DiAngelo told us, should be able to say: “I hold awareness of my whiteness in all settings, and it guides how I engage. I raise issues about racism over and over, both in public and in private … You want to go watch a movie with me? You’re going to get my analysis of how racism played in that movie. I have personal relationships and know the private lives of a range of people of color, including Black people. And there are also people of color in my life who I specifically ask to coach me, and I pay them for their time.”

I was surprised by this idea that I should pay Black friends and acquaintances by the hour to tutor me—it sounded a little offensive. But then I considered that if someone wanted me to come to their house and talk with them about their latent feelings of homophobia, I wouldn’t mind being Venmoed afterward.

When DiAngelo was done, Quinn asked if we had questions. Very few people did, and that was disappointing—the fact that white bodies had nothing to say about a profound presentation. Silence and self-consciousness were part of the problem. “People’s lives are on the line. This is life or death for bodies of culture.” We needed to work on handling criticism. If it made you shake, that was good.

One of the few men in the group said he felt uncomfortable being told to identify as a racist. Here he’d just been talking with all of his friends about not being racist. Now he was going to “say that I might have been wrong here.” He noticed he felt “resistance to saying ‘I’m racist.’”

Quinn understood; that was normal. He just needed to try again, say “I am a racist” and believe it. The man said: “I am racist.” What did he feel? He said he was trying not to fight it. Say it again. “I am racist.”

“Do you feel sadness or grief?”

“Sadness and grief feel true,” he said.

“That’s beautiful,” Quinn said.

Some members of the group were having a breakthrough. Stacy said she was “seeing them finally … Like, wow, are there moments when this white body chooses to see a body of culture when it isn’t dangerous for them?” One woman realized she was “a walking, talking node of white supremacy.” Another finally saw how vast whiteness was: “So vast and so, so big.”

F or a while , a dinner series called Race to Dinner for white women to talk about their racism was very popular, though now it seems a little try-hard. The hosts—Saira Rao and Regina Jackson—encourage women who have paid up to $625 a head to abandon any notion that they are not racist. At one point Rao, who is Indian American, and Jackson, who is Black, publicized the dinners with a simple message: “Dear white women: You cause immeasurable pain and damage to Black, Indigenous and brown women. We are here to sit down with you to candidly discuss how *exactly* you cause this pain and damage.”

One could also attend a workshop called “What’s Up With White Women? Unpacking Sexism and White Privilege Over Lunch,” hosted by the authors of What’s Up With White Women? Unpacking Sexism and White Privilege in Pursuit of Racial Justice (the authors are two white women). Or you could go to “Finding Freedom: White Women Taking On Our Own White Supremacy,” hosted by We Are Finding Freedom (a for-profit run by two white women). The National Association of Social Workers’ New York City chapter advertised a workshop called “Building White Women’s Capacity to Do Anti-racism Work” (hosted by the founder of U Power Change, who is a white woman).

So many of the workshops have been run by and aimed at white women. White women specifically seem very interested in these courses, perhaps because self-flagellation is seen as a classic female virtue. The hated archetype of the anti-racist movement is the Karen . No real equivalent exists for men. Maybe the heavily armed prepper comes close, but he’s not quite the same, in that a Karen is someone you’ll run into in a coffee shop, and a Karen is also someone who is disgusted with herself. Where another generation of white women worked to hate their bodies, my generation hates its “whiteness” (and I don’t mean skin color, necessarily, as this can also be your internalized whiteness). People are always demanding that women apologize for something and women seem to love doing it. Women will pay for the opportunity. We’ll thank you for it.

Tyler Austin Harper: I’m a black professor. You don’t need to bring that up.

After DiAngelo, I went to another course, “Foundations in Somatic Abolitionism.” That one was more about what my white flesh itself means and how to physically manifest anti-racism—“embodying anti-racism.” Those sessions were co-led by Resmaa Menakem, a therapist and the author of My Grandmother’s Hands: Racialized Trauma and the Pathway to Mending Our Hearts and Bodies .

Menakem stressed how important it was not to do his exercises with people of color, because it would wound them: “Do not have bodies of culture in a group of white bodies. White bodies with white bodies and bodies of culture with bodies of culture.”

The harm caused by processing your whiteness with a person of color had also been stressed in the previous course—the book DiAngelo had recommended by Reni Eddo-Lodge was called Why I’m No Longer Talking to White People About Race . But at the same time, Quinn had said that we should talk with people of different races about our journey and let them guide us. It all seemed a bit contradictory.

One participant had a question for Menakem about community building. She was concerned because she had a mixed-race group of friends, and she wanted to be sure she wasn’t harming her Black friends by talking about this work.

“There’s no way you’re going to be able to keep Black women safe,” Menakem said. “If you’re talking about race, if race is part of the discussion, those Black women are going to get injured in the process.”

“That’s my worry,” she said. The problem was that she and her friends were actually already in “like, an anti-racism study group.” Menakem was definitive: “Don’t do that,” he said. “I don’t want white folks gazing at that process.”

A few years have passed since I was in these workshops, and I wonder if the other participants are “better” white people now. What would that even mean, exactly? Getting outside their ethnic tribe—or the opposite?

At one point Menakem intoned, “All white bodies cause racialized stress and wounding to bodies of culture. Everybody say it. ‘All white bodies cause racialized stress and wounding to bodies of culture.’” We said it, over and over again. I collapsed into it, thinking: I am careless; I am selfish; I do cause harm. The more we said it, the more it started to feel like a release. It felt so sad. But it also—and this seemed like a problem—felt good.

What if fighting for justice could just be a years-long confessional process and didn’t require doing anything tangible at all? What if I could defeat white supremacy from my lovely living room, over tea, with other white people? Personally I don’t think that’s how it works. I’m not sold. But maybe my whiteness has blinded me. The course wrapped up, and Menakem invited us all to an upcoming two-day workshop.

This essay is adapted from the forthcoming book, Morning After the Revolution: Dispatches from the Wrong Side of History.

​When you buy a book using a link on this page, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.

• American History
• Ancient History

These 30 Rulers in History Were Hated by All

Even the most vile rulers in history are sometimes given a break by historians and screenwriters, their crimes minimized as their attributes are presented in favorable terms. Genghis Khan, whose conquests led to the deaths of more than 10% of the world’s population at the time, is often praised for his military skills, for example. Qin Shi Huang is recognized as creating the first unified China, but his obsession with building a wall to keep out undesirables led in part to the destruction of any education system throughout his empire, as well as the creation of a peasant class. They are but two of the most hated rulers in history, though they thought quite highly of themselves. Here are thirty of history’s most hated leaders.

1. Tamerlane (Timur) built towers from the skulls of his enemies

Tamerlane was of Turkic stock, though he believed himself to be a direct descendant of Genghis Khan . His empire, which lasted four decades, was built upon the slaughter of uncounted thousands, the destruction of cities, and the torturing to death of those who refused to convert to his religion of choice, Islam. From their skulls, he had towers constructed in the cities he conquered . He styled himself as the sword of Islam, and it was he who defeated the Christian Knights Hospitaller at Smyrna. His military campaigns in Asia, Europe, and Africa led to the deaths of an estimated 17 million people. Despite his penchant for torture and mass executions, some scholars extol his virtues as a patron of the arts and an architectural visionary. His great empire crumbled quickly after his death in 1405.

NEXT >>

2. Qin Shi Huang destroyed the educational system of China

Qin Shi Huang distrusted the educated, believing them to be a threat to his rule, and destroyed books on an epic scale, virtually eliminating education in the Chinese provinces he conquered. The killing of Confucian priests was also high on his list of priorities. The building of a wall to keep undesirables out of his lands (a forerunner to China’s Great Wall) and the use of forced labor for both the wall and a roads system led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Qin declared all under his rule to be equal, eliminating the class system and creating a nation of peasants which were little more than slave labor, and had them build a huge hidden tomb with a terra cotta army to accompany him to the next world. His unified China collapsed less than ten years after his 210 BCE death.

<< Previous

3. Herod Antipas managed to antagonize virtually everyone under his realm

Often referred to as King Herod, a title which he did not hold, Antipas played a direct role in the death of John the Baptist, an indirect role in the Crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth (he refused to find Jesus guilty of crimes and ordered him returned to Pontius Pilate), and was eventually accused of conspiring against the Roman Emperor Caligula . His divorce of his first wife led to a war with King Aretas, his former father-in-law, as well as the condemnation of John the Baptist. Herod was thus denounced by Jews, early followers of Christ, and the Roman authorities, and eventually, his position as Tetrarch in Galilee and Perea became untenable. He was sent in exile to Gaul with his second wife, Herodias, where he died sometime after 39 CE.

4. Ivan the Terrible was the first of the Russian Tsars

Ivan became Tsar of all the Russias, establishing Moscow as the premier Russian state, at the age of seventeen. Under his reign, Russia was transformed into the Russian Empire from the medieval state which he inherited, though his increasingly erratic behavior ensured that it was costly to the people under his rule. Ivan was actually quite popular among the lower classes of the people; it was the nobility which he distrusted and which he purged. He created the first Russian political police – the Oprichniki – which he used to arrest and execute members of the Russian nobility, confiscating their lands and money to his own treasury. The taxation demands levied on the peasantry occupying the lands became excessive, and by the time of his death, Ivan the Terrible was reviled by nearly all of Russia.

5. Josef Stalin contained his enemies through executions and imprisonment

Stalin managed to present himself as a man of the people even as his secret police forces repressed and murdered them by the hundreds of thousands. Famines which occurred under his rule, some of them created through his own policies, led to the death of millions . He executed thousands of Soviet army officers in purges in the years before the Second World War and sent millions to vanish in the Gulags. Just under 800,000 documented executions took place during the years of his rule in the Soviet Union. He also dispatched assassination teams to kill his enemies around the world. He endorsed the rapes committed by Soviet troops as they overran Eastern Europe in 1945, saying to a Yugoslav communist leader, “…and what is so awful in his [Soviet soldiers] having fun with a woman, after such horrors?” in reference to the campaign against the Germans.

6. Marquis of the Valley of the Oaxaca, Hernan Cortes

The man most readily identified with the Spanish conquerors known as the Conquistadores, Hernan Cortes was feared, distrusted, distrusting, cunning, and cruel. His career was self-serving, largely an attempt to achieve wealth and power through the exploitation of the indigenous peoples he encountered, enslaving some and killing others. He used some tribes as allies, fighting against both the Aztec Empire and Spanish troops sent to recall him, establishing himself as the de facto ruler of the lands which were formerly those of the Aztec before being recalled to Spain. The absence of scholarly information regarding Cortes leaves him a man of questionable reputation, but there is little doubt that during his lifetime he endured the enmity of Spanish rivals and the peoples he ruthlessly enslaved and exploited.

7. Ferdinand and Isabella prosecuted the inquisition in Spain

Although best remembered – especially in America – as the patrons of the voyages of Columbus , Isabella of Castile and Ferdinand of Aragon used authority bestowed upon them by the papacy, as well as funding from the same source, to aggressively battle religious beliefs which were foreign to the Catholic Church for decades. Jews who refused to convert to Catholicism were forcibly expelled from their realms, their property confiscated. Jews who claimed conversion falsely were tortured into confessions and executed. Protestantism was similarly treated, with those accused of heresy by the Office of the Inquisition subjected to death by burning at the stake. The same year Columbus left on his first voyage to the west, Ferdinand and Isabella issued the Alhambra Decree, banishing Jews from Spain if they did not convert to Catholicism within four months.

8. Maximilian was installed as the Emperor of Mexico

During the French intervention in Mexico in the mid-nineteenth century the United States was unable to enforce the principles of the Monroe Doctrine , occupied as it was with the American Civil War. Maximilian, brother of the Austrian Emperor Franz Joseph, was installed by French Emperor Napoleon III as Emperor of Mexico, supported with troops of the French Empire. The Mexican aristocracy largely opposed the Emperor, as did the revolutionaries led by Benito Juarez. When the American Civil War ended, US support of Juarez became more overt, and the departure of the French in 1866 led to the collapse of the Mexican Empire. Maximilian, lacking support among the Mexican people, was arrested, tried for treason, and executed by his former subjects, most of whom had never fully accepted him as the legitimate ruler of Mexico. His refusal to restore democracy to Mexico led to his demise, and he remains controversial in Mexico today.

9. Akhenaten is regarded as the most widely reviled of the Egyptian Pharaohs

Akhenaten was a pharaoh of the 18 th dynasty who ruled more than 13 centuries before the Common Era. Also known as Amenhotep IV , the name under which he reigned in the early years of his rule, Akhenaten drew the ire of his subjects by commanding a semi-monotheistic religion centered on worship of the god Aten. His subjects, polytheistic for centuries, did not welcome his initiatives. The result was that Akhenaten, whom some believe to be the father of Tutankhamen, was banished from Egyptian history following his death at the end of a reign of 17 years. Monuments and memorials which he had had constructed were destroyed, and references to him were removed from records. He would have been forgotten forever had the site he had built for the worship of Aten not been discovered in the 19 th century. In 1907 his mummy was discovered, and in recent years DNA analysis has established that the mummy was the father of the man known as King Tut . Possibly the most famous of the ancient pharaohs were fathered by the most hated. That hatred was large because he had the temerity to tamper with the religious beliefs of his subjects.

10. Vlad the Impaler may have been the inspiration for Count Dracula

Vlad Dracul, the father of the man known to history as Vlad the Impaler , was believed to have inspired Bram Stoker to name his fictional vampire Count Dracula in the gothic novel which gave birth to the vampire genre of literature and film. The son, known as Vlad the Impaler, claimed the title of Prince (Voivode) of Wallachia, and used extraordinarily cruel methods to enforce his claims against his enemies real and imagined. Vlad’s favorite method of torturing and executing his enemies, which included Saxons, Ottomans, Wallachians, Hungarians, Bulgars, and others, was by impaling them, from the rectum to the chest, to hang upon the stake until merciful death overcame them. Feared and hated throughout Transylvania, stories of his cruelty were common during his lifetime, including those of his having men, women, and children boiled to death in large cauldrons constructed for the purpose. Today he is widely considered a national hero of Romania.

11. Lucius Aurelius Commodus came to believe himself a god

Commodus ruled as Emperor of Rome alongside his father, Marcus Aurelius, from 177 to 180 CE, after which he ruled solely for another dozen years. He was 18 years of age when his father died, leaving him the sole ruler of the Roman Empire. His rule, though for the most part peaceful when considering foreign wars, was increasingly capricious and dictatorial, and the senatorial order of Rome which he taxed heavily grew to hate as well as fear him. He remained popular with the people through his staging of gladiatorial spectacles in which he frequently took part. He ensured he would emerge from combat victorious by disabling his opponents in a manner hidden to the audience before they entered the arena. He erected statues portraying him in godly status throughout the empire, and eventually bestowed the name of Commodianus upon the people and governmental infrastructure of the empire, implying they were all his children. He also renamed Rome after himself, calling himself the reincarnation of Romulus . Delusional and despotic, he was assassinated in 192. After his death, his statues were destroyed and he was declared an enemy of the people.

12. Murad IV was the epitome of the brutal Ottoman ruler

Murad IV was Sultan of the Ottoman Empire from the age of 11; his mother ruled through him during the early years of his reign. Murad grew fearful of the corruption he saw surrounding him during this period, and at the age of twenty, in 1632, he moved to consolidate his power. An early step in that direction was the arrest and execution of his brother-in-law. He banned the consumption of coffee, alcohol, and tobacco (since people gathered in shops to use them, and where people gathered corrupt bargains loomed) making those violating the edict subject to death . Civil law was strengthened and strictly enforced. Imams who opposed him or counteracted his civil laws with religious edicts were executed. Murad may have banned consumption of alcohol by his subjects, but he did not extend the ban to himself, nor to his many concubines when in his presence. He died in his capital of Istanbul in 1640, at the age of 27, of cirrhosis of the liver.

13. There is a reason no British King has taken the name John since the days of the Magna Carta

Richard I, known to posterity as Richard the Lionheart, was King of England when he departed on the Third Crusade late in the twelfth century. His brother attempted to rebel against Richard’s interests, and during the King’s absence ruled as King John, later inheriting the throne on Richard’s death in 1199. John’s record as both an administrator of the government and a leader at war have been assessed and reassessed every other generation or so since, leading his reputation to be both tarnished and redeemed. Most historians agree that he was vindictive, petty, and possessed an often demonstrated inclination towards cruelty. Following a failure to defeat the French in 1214 John returned to England to find the Barons united in rebellion against him, and he signed the Magna Carta imposed upon him in 1215, though he largely ignored the conditions to which his signature signaled agreement. No English monarch has taken the name John ever since his reign ended after his death from dysentery.

14. Ranavalona I sacrificed her people in opposition to European colonialism

As Queen of Madagascar, a title she assumed in 1828, Ranavalona was virulently opposed to both the influence of the European governments – chiefly France and Great Britain – and the work of Christian Missionaries within her realms. To stop them, she implemented policies which included heavy taxation of her people and the requirement to perform forced labor or military or service – or both – in order to pay them. She also engaged in warfare with the Europeans, intent on preventing the creation of permanent settlements on her island nation. She was opposed by her son, who negotiated with the French to create treaties of mutual benefit, with the French exploiting the island’s resources and the son, Radama, receiving their support claiming the throne. The conspiracy failed, Radama did not achieve power until the death of her mother, by which time the policies of the latter had reduced the native population of Madagascar by nearly half. After her death in 1861, European histories and those of the colonies they established depicted Ranavalona as a hated and deranged ruler. She is still widely considered so in Madagascar today, though a growing movement praising her for maintaining Malagasy culture and tradition has evolved.

15. Nicholas II was the last ruler of a 300-year-old dynasty

The Romanov Dynasty as rulers of the Russian Empire came to an end with the deposing of Tsar Nicholas II. Nicholas’s reign as the Tsar was marked throughout its more than two decades with economic collapse, crop failures, military defeats , anti-Semitic pogroms, the execution of dissidents, and the denial of reforms. During his reign, he was known among the people of his empire as Nicholas the Bloody, Vile Nicholas, and other less than flattering names. World War I and the heavy casualties suffered by the Russian Army, officered by members of the nobility but its ranks filled with conscripted peasants, led to the February Revolution . Nicholas abdicated his throne in favor of his son Alexei, expecting to go into exile. Instead, he and his family were executed by the Bolsheviks in July 1918. Part of the rationale for executing the Tsar was his being related to both the British King and the German Kaiser, as well as several other crowned heads of Europe. Although some have since defended his personal character, the consensus of history is that Nicholas was an inept ruler, and he was widely hated among his people.

16. Abraham Lincoln was widely reviled by the press and public

As Abraham Lincoln was on his way to Washington to be inaugurated as President, an article appeared in a newspaper which compared him unfavorably to a “braying ass”. It was not a national newspaper but rather the Salem Advocate , published in Lincoln’s former hometown. More widely read newspapers were less than supportive, one, the Brooklyn Eagle, said the newly elected President, after being smuggled through Baltimore to avoid an assassination plot , should be treated with “the deepest disgrace that the crushing indignation of a whole people can inflict”. It wasn’t just the nation’s newspapers which demonstrated hatred for Lincoln; throughout his first administration, he received letters which contained threats on his life, referred to him as an ape, an orangutan, a baboon, a jackass, and other even less complimentary terms, most of which also appeared in editorial columns and cartoons. Even his Emancipation Proclamation was greeted with derision by many, the Chicago Times called it “a criminal wrong, and an act of national suicide”.

17. Leopold II of Belgium ruled the Congo as a privately held colony

Leopold II was King of Belgium from 1865 – 1909. In 1885 he established the Congo Free State as a private colony, from which he extracted great wealth which was used for private and public projects in Belgium. Beginning with ivory, and later expanding to the wealth attained from rubber, Leopold exploited the native population of the Congo through forced labor. He maintained his iron grip on the natives by using administrators who resorted to torture and executions. Laborers in the rubber plantations and processing facilities faced quotas which often killed them through overwork and exhaustion, and those who failed to meet the quotas established by the King were subjected to beatings, the amputation of limbs , and other atrocities. Approximately 10 million Congolese died under his rule. In 1908, concerned about the rising condemnation of other nations over the activities in the Congo, the government of Belgium established control over the colony, which became the Belgian Congo, free from Leopold’s direct control. He died the following year, having never visited the colony which he ruled with such ruthlessness.

18. Maximilien Robespierre created the period of French history known as the Reign of Terror

The French Revolution became noted for its atrocities against the nobility and clergy of France, especially during the period of mass executions known as the Reign of Terror. During the period, wagons known as tumbrils rolled through the streets of Paris and other French cities, carrying the condemned to their appointment with the guillotine. In truth, the Reign of Terror was directed against the political adversaries of Robespierre and their supporters. Much of the condemnation directed towards Robespierre is now debated by scholars, though there is little question that during the time of the terror, roughly 1793 – 1794, he was one of the most feared and hated men in all of France. The wavering fortunes of the Revolutionary armies against England and Austria weakened his political position in early 1794, and his enemies succeeded in having Robespierre arrested for treason (shot through the jaw, whether by his enemies or in attempted suicide remains debated) and executed on the guillotine in July of 1794.

19. Louis XVI went from universal popularity to being the most hated man in France

Louis XVI, King of France at the time of the French Revolution , was initially a monarch popular with his people and the nobility. During his relatively short reign, his popularity with both dwindled rapidly. The nobility and the church despised him for his weakness in dealing with the earliest symptoms of revolution. The peasantry and merchant class grew to blame him for failing harvests, famine, and rising taxes. The image of the King as a parasite living luxuriously at the expense of his people was propagandized by the revolutionaries, and Louis found himself in danger as France was beset with military enemies. After he attempted to flee , he was arrested and taken to Paris as a prisoner. The revolutionaries presented a case against him of attempting to leave France to raise armies among his fellow crowned heads of Europe to crush the revolution. By then his popularity had ebbed to its nadir, and Louis and his family were among the most hated people in French history. His execution on the guillotine was one of the most memorable events of French history, with his head held aloft to the cheering crowds which witnessed it.

20. Lyndon Johnson became one of the most hated Presidents in American history

When Lyndon Johnson assumed the Presidency upon the murder of his predecessor, John F. Kennedy, he was immediately popular, a stance which he exploited to win election to the office in 1964 in one of the greatest landslides of US history. Within four years that popularity was squandered, and Johnson chose not to attempt re-election in 1968. He was hated by liberals for his support of the Vietnam War and the draft . Conservatives hated his prosecution of the war as being too limited. They also hated the Civil Rights Act which he pushed through Congress and the Voting Rights Act which followed. His support of desegregation and civil rights brought him additional hatred, not only in the Deep South but in liberal bastions such as Boston. Supporters of law and order thought his administration was too soft on crime, especially regarding the civil rights demonstrations in the South. “Hey hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?” became a protest chant heard daily. Johnson was not driven to lose the Presidency, he simply abandoned it.

21. Catherine the Great overthrew her husband and usurped the throne from her son

Catherine the Great of Russia acceded to the throne as empress after participating in a coup which led to the arrest of her husband, Peter III. Six months later Peter was assassinated while under house arrest by another plotter of the coup, though in fairness to Catherine there is no evidence that she ordered or was even aware of the plot to kill Peter. There were others with claims to the throne following Peter III. One was Ivan VI, who had spent nearly his whole life incarcerated, and who was assassinated on Catherine’s order in response to an attempted coup against her. Another was the Grand Duke Paul, her son with Peter III, who should have claimed the throne upon reaching the age of majority, with Catherine as empress regent until then. The serfs of Russia simmered with growing resentment throughout her reign, exploding into open rebellions, all of which failed, and led to even harsher conditions. Today she is widely regarded as an enlightened despot by scholars.

22. Paul I of Russia antagonized his subjects during his short reign

Paul I of Russia was the son of Catherine the Great, believed he was the rightful Tsar during most of her reign, and acceded to the throne upon her death from a stroke. His attempts to reform the army led to the resentment of the nobility, reforms over the treatment of the peasant class increased the resentment, and four years into his reign a conspiracy was formed among his closest advisors to assassinate him and place his son on the throne. His son was in the palace where the assassination of the Tsar took place, though there is no evidence that he was part of the conspiracy. Paul I fought back against his attackers, who eventually killed him by strangling him and kicking his inert body, after which they informed the new Tsar, Alexander I, to assume the throne. Alexander was 23, and in one of his first acts as Tsar decided not to prosecute or otherwise punish the conspirators who killed his father.

23. Oliver Cromwell was a hated figure among Catholics and Royalists

Cromwell, one of the men to sign the warrant of execution for King Charles I , has been hailed as one of the greatest Britons of all time by some, and a genocidal tyrant by others. Crushingly brutal treatment of Irish Catholics followed his departure from Ireland, which has led some scholars to place the blame for the atrocities on other generals. Cromwell however was certainly aware of it and did nothing to stop the deportation of thousands to Barbados, Bermuda, and other locations as indentured servants or prisoners of war. Women and children were among the more than 50,000 Irish so treated. During his military campaigns in Ireland, he reported to London the killing of 3,000 Irish troops, though he appended the phrase “and many inhabitants” during the destruction of Drogheda in September 1649. Cromwell’s several massacres were based on religious prejudice , and he himself wrote that he would not allow “the exercise of the Mass” wherever he held power.

24. Caligula declared himself a god during his terroristic reign

Caligula was one of several Roman emperors who inspired terror in the hearts of his subjects, including the Senate. His proclivity for sexual excess has been widely reported, some of it exaggerated and some of it likely true. Anyone suspected of treason under his rule was subject to arrest, torture, and execution, and treason was defined as acts against the emperor rather than against the state. Declaring himself to be a god antagonized many of the subjects of his realm, including both the Jews and emerging Christian sects. Caligula strove to increase the personal power of the emperor, weakening the balancing powers of the Roman government and using the wealth of the empire to erect luxurious palaces for himself. A conspiracy of Roman senators, members of the court, and the Praetorian Guard plotted the assassination of the hated emperor in 41 CE, after a reign just two months short of four years. Caligula had planned to move to Alexandria, from whence he would reign and be worshiped as a god, thus stripping Rome of its political power and prestige.

25. Idi Amin Dada Oumee became President of Uganda through a military coup

Idi Amin was an officer in the Ugandan armed forces of the British Empire when Uganda gained its independence in 1962. In 1971, he was the commander of the Ugandan Army when it was discovered by the President of Uganda, Milton Obote, that Amin had been enriching himself through embezzling funds intended for the army. Before Obote could have Amin arrested the latter launched a coup, deposed Obote, and made himself president while retaining command of the army. Amin was a despotic tyrant who persecuted several different ethnic groups, protected himself politically through nepotism and extrajudicial executions of enemies, and suppressed all forms of dissent. Up to a half-million Ugandans were executed under his rule, which ended when he was forced to flee after Tanzanian troops invaded Uganda. Amin lived the final years of his life in exile in Saudi Arabia, financially supported by the Saud family.

26. Milton Obote, ousted by Idi Amin, was a hated ruler of Uganda as well

When Idi Amin overthrew Milton Obote’s government while the latter was attending a meeting in Singapore it was widely welcomed by the Ugandan people, which allowed Amin to consolidate power quickly. Obote was a corrupt and tyrannical ruler , implicated (with Amin) in plots smuggling both gold and ivory during his term as prime minister. In response to such accusations, he suspended the Ugandan parliament, declared martial law, named himself president and through that office issued emergency decrees which effectively suppressed dissent and opposition to his policies. Following an attempted assassination in 1969, Obote used the Ugandan secret police, run by his cousin, to terrorize the Ugandan people, and those who dared to speak against his regime were sentenced to life imprisonment without trial. Obote’s personal corruption and despotism led to the people supporting the overthrow of the hated ruler, who fled to exile in Tanzania. He later returned to power in Uganda, in a regime which was equally as bad as his first.

27. Ibrahim bankrupted the Ottoman Empire through his extravagances

Ibrahim was the brother of Murad IV, Sultan of the Ottoman Empire, and as a result was sentenced to imprisonment by the insane Murad, who had his other three brothers executed. Ibrahim was only spared due to the pleadings of his mother, who was also the concubine who had given birth to Murad (the other brothers were from other concubines). When Murad died Ibrahim became Sultan and became so infamous that it was widely believed his imprisonment had affected his sanity. Ibrahim spent his time and the empire’s treasure on personal extravagances, banishing or imprisoning any who opposed him, and elevated women of his harem to high offices. Eventually even Ibrahim’s mother called for his removal, responding to a member of a conspiracy for the purpose, “The whole society is in ruins. Have him removed from the throne immediately”. After he was removed from the throne his mother, who had once pled for his life, gave her consent to his assassination.

28. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Shah of Iran, ruled Iran for over 37 years

The rule of the most recent Shah of Iran was marked by an ongoing decline in the support of the working class and religious leaders of the Shi’a sect of Islam. He also entered into conflicts with the merchant class, banned most opposition political parties and meetings, and used his secret police, SAVAK , to crush dissent across Iranian society. But it was Shi’a clerics who opposed the support of the United States and the United Kingdom of the Shah who stirred up much of the opposition to the Shah’s regime, including his allowing women to vote. As more and more dissidents protested against the Shah and the perceived westernization of the country SAVAK arrested and imprisoned hundreds. By 1978 more than 2,000 political prisoners were being held in its jails. That number increased quickly as Iran descended into a full-blown revolution and Pahlavi and his family fled from Iran in January 1979. The monarchy was abolished following the departure of the Shah, though his legacy in Iran still affects US – Iran relations four decades later, with much of the hatred for the Shah transferred to the United States.

29. Francisco Franco ruled by oppression and the use of propaganda

For nearly four decades the schoolchildren in Franco’s Spain were taught the Generalissimo had been sent by a Divine Providence to save the nation from anarchy and atheism. As adults, they were reminded of this through the use of propaganda posters and broadcasts. Those who found room for disagreement were repressed through prisons and firing squads, and hundreds of thousands died over the course of his fascist regime. As his rule lengthened it also softened in some respects, but since his death in 1975 memorials to his regime have been gradually taken down. Franco had his name assigned to numerous streets, government buildings, and other edifices. Beginning in 2007 referral to the Franco regime on such structures has been banned by the Spanish government. In many instances, they have been replaced with memorials to Franco’s many victims. By 2008 the last statue of Franco extant in Spain was removed .

30. Vidkun Quisling’s last name became synonymous with betrayal

Vidkun Quisling was the prime minister of the Norwegian puppet government established after the German occupation of Norway during the Second World War. Though Quisling held little power independent of the Nazis he required little supervision carrying out German policies and programs. Quisling was a whole-hearted supporter of the Nazis, forcing the Norwegian security apparatus to support the Final Solution. Quisling supported the forced exile of Norway’s Jews, helped raise volunteers from Norway to serve in the SS, and created a single-party state in Norway. Over the course of the war, he made several trips to visit Hitler, hoping to secure independence for Norway from German control, with his country aligned as a German ally. After the war, the hated Quisling was tried, convicted, and executed for his actions during the coup which brought him to power and other crimes. Today the word quisling signifies a collaborator or traitor in several countries, in several languages.

Where do we find this stuff? Here are our sources:

“Tamerlane: Sword of Islam, Conqueror of the World”. Juston Marozzi. 2006

“The First Emperor of China”. Jonathan Clements. 2006

“Antiquities”. Josephus, 17-20. War 1-2

“Ivan IV the Terrible”. Janet Martin, Medieval Russia 980-1584. 2007

“Stalin: Breaker of Nations”. Robert Conquest. 1991

“Hernando Cortes and the Conquest of Mexico”. Gina De Angelis. 1999

“Ferdinand and Isabella: Profiles in Power”. John Edwards. 2005

“Maximilian, Mexico, and the Invention of Empire”. Kristine Ibsen. 2010

“Akhenaten: King of Egypt”. Cyril Aldrid. 1991

“Dracula, Prince of Many Faces: His Life and Times”. Radu R. Florescu. 1989

“Commodus the God-Emperor and the Army”. M. P. Speidel, Journal of Roman Studies. 1993

“Osman’s Dream: The Story of the Ottoman Empire, 1300 – 1923”. Caroline Finkel. 2005

“King John: England, Magna Carta, and the Making of a Tyrant”. Stephen Church. 2015

“The Sacrificed Generation: Youth, History, and the Colonized Mind in Madagascar”. Leslie Sharp, 2002

“The Fate of the Romanovs: The Final Chapter”. Robert K. Massie. 1996

“Evidence for the Unpopular Mr. Lincoln. The People at the Polls 1860 -1864”. Feature article, American Battlefield Trust. Online

“King Leopold’s Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror, and Heroism in Colonial Africa”. Neal Ascherson. 1963 (2020)

“Revolutionary Career of Maximilien Robespierre”. David P. Jordan. 2013

“Execution of Louis XVI”. Frank N. McGill, Mcgill’s History of Europe. 1993

“Why Lyndon Johnson, a truly awful man, is my political hero”. Jack Burnhardt, The Guardian. January 22, 2018

“Catherine the Great”. BBC History Online. BBC Archives

“Paul I of Russia”. Roderick E. McGrew. 1992

“The Big Question: Was Cromwell a revolutionary hero or genocidal war criminal?” Paul Vallely, The Telegraph. September 4, 2008

“Caligula”. The Roman Empire in the First Century. PBS.org.

“How to Stage a Military Coup: From Planning to Execution”. D. Hebditch and K. Connor. 2005

“Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the last king of Iran”. France24, January 14, 2019. Online

“Spaniards confront the legacy of Civil War and Dictatorship”. Sebastian Faber and Becquer Seguin, The Nation. July 18, 2016. Online

“Quisling: A study in treason”. Oddvar K. Hoidal. 1989

• Dinner Dash
• Hard to Find
• Discount Codes

• Better Life

10 most hated household chores

• 13 Oct 2016

What’s your least favourite task? We put the question to our fabulous Better Homes and Gardens audience and these were the 'Top 10 most hated household tasks'.

1. Cleaning the bathroom

A recent study found staphylococcus bacteria in 26% of the bathtubs tested. Whilst  staph bacteria is common and in most cases doesn't cause any problems, if it enters the body, the bacteria might multiply, which could lead to an infection. So it pays to give your bathroom a good scrub! 

2. Cleaning the toilet

How germy is the toilet? According to a study conducted by the University of Arizona on household bacteria - it's very germy. So unfortunately, it just has to be done! The study revealed that when  flushing a toilet, it resembles a fireworks display. Bacteria such as E. coli and salmonella then goes flying through the air, landing on items such as the seat, the handle, and other surfaces nearby. 

3. Washing the dishes

Dirty plates left in the sink can serve as a breeding ground for illness-causing bacteria, including  E. coli  and salmonella. Additionally, this bacteria can spread from your hands to food!

4. Ironing clothes

According to an Australian Bureau of Statistics survey, Australian women still spend 5.8 times as much time on laundry and clothes tasks as men do. Blokes of Australia, it's time to step up! 

5. Laundry - hanging out the washing, folding clothes and putting them away.

6. Cleaning the windows

Ugh! There's nothing worse than spending all that time cleaning your windows, only to go back inside to look out through those freshly cleaned windows and all you see is....streaks. What's the secret to a streak-free window? According to some cleaning experts, it's a 50/50 vinegar-water solution, as it doesn't contain soap, which contributes to streaking. The other solution is to finish up using a  chamois or a microfiber cloth to minimise streaking. 

7. Cleaning the stovetop and oven

The Department of Health suggests cleaning the oven and stovetop once a month. When was the last time you gave your stovetop and oven a good clean?

One of the biggest mistakes people make when mopping, is not giving the floor a quick vacuum or sweep beforehand. By mopping without a quick sweep first, simply spreads dust and hair over the floor surface as you mop. And more so if you have pets inside the house. 

Okay. This is gross, but the simple truth is, dust is a combination of human skin cells, dust mite excrement, fabric fibers, dirt and debris from outside that has made its way inside. So that’s why it’s important to keep up the dusting. Regular dusting also reduces the chance of allergy and breathing problems.

10. Vacuuming

Are you guilty of pressing the rewind button for the cord on your vacuum cleaner with your foot and watching it reel in at the speed of sound? As satisfying as it is, by doing this, you could be damaging the cord, sending it off its track, resulting in unnecessary fees to fix it. To avoid this, hold the cord in your hand as you retract it.

And just for good measure, we also had ‘pairing socks’, ‘grocery shopping’, ‘cleaning out the kitty litter’ and ‘being an adult’.

All the chores that you hate to do can always be outsourced using Airtasker .

Access thousands of skilled people for your home & office tasks. From furniture assembly to data entry - hire a skilled Airtasker today .

Treat yourself to a subscription-Save up to 25%

Plus, your chance to win

5 easy-to-clean glass kettles that are worth the upgrade

Sunrise alarm clock review: a multipurpose device that goes beyond just waking you up, don't let your holiday be ruined by a nicked wallet - invest in a crossbody bag, all winners, no fillers 32 thoughtful mother's day gifts she will really love, how the 5 things method makes cleaning less stressful, 6 convection heaters to keep you warm and toasty all winter long, dr harry: how to a stop schnauzer from barking so much, sick of holiday wardrobe woes these luggage organisation accessories will change that, invest in colourful, vibrant dumbbell sets and achieve your fitness goals at home, fire ants are now a threat to all of australia – here's what you should know, where to get flowers same-day delivered this mother's day, have elegant and charming dinner parties with one of these modern dining tables, adam and juliet transform a playroom into a terrific toddler's room, dr harry meets members of the riverina light horse troop, magazine subscription offer.

Money latest: Billie Eilish fans furious at 'outrageous' ticket prices

Billie Eilish fans are complaining about "outrageous" ticket prices for her Hit Me Hard and Soft tour. Read this and all the latest consumer and personal finance news below, plus leave a comment in the box.

Thursday 2 May 2024 17:44, UK

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

• OECD warns UK shouldn't cut interest rates yet
• UK ranks bottom in G7 economic growth forecast
• 'Outrageous': Billie Eilish fans complain about ticket prices
• Aldi's market share falls as people head back to traditional supermarkets (except one)
• New ISA rules were supposed to help savers - right now they've just made everything more complicated

Essential reads

• How to nab yourself a free upgrade on a flight
• You're probably washing and storing your clothes wrong. Here's what you should do instead
• Money Problem : 'Builders won't repair dodgy work - what are my rights?'
• '£2,000 landed in my account' - The people who say they're manifesting riches

Ask a question or make a comment

If you earn significantly more or less than your partner, how do you split payments for things like housing, food, household essentials, entertainment and holidays? 

Do you both pay equally, do you split costs according to income, or do you have another method? 

Get in touch with an outline of your situation in the  box above or:

• Email [email protected] with the subject line "Money blog"
• WhatsApp us  here .

JD Sports has told head office staff they must return to the office at least four days a week .

The new amendment to the hybrid working policy will be effective from 1 July and will impact employees at the retail chain's head office in Bury, Retail Gazette reports.

However, the chain will still allow flexibly depending on individual roles.

Pubs could stay open late during the Euros this summer, according to The Sun .

Home Secretary James Cleverly hinted he was looking into extending pub opening hours for the tournament on The Sun show Never Mind The Ballots.

He said: "I will certainly look into it."

We've been bringing you news of plenty of bank switch deals offering free cash these past few months, but Virgin Money has a different kind of incentive for switchers - a 12% interest rate. 

People who switch to its M Account, M Plus Account or Club M Account will be able to get bonus interest rates of 10% gross/10.47% AER (fixed). 

This is on top of the 2% gross/2.02% AER (variable) interest rate already offered on current account balances up to £1,000 - meaning customers can get an interest rate of 12%. 

No other savings accounts offer interest rates this high, and the bonus applies for a year.

TikTok will restore millions of songs to its app after settling a royalty dispute with Universal Music Group. 

Users had been unable to make videos featuring songs from the likes of Billie Eilish and Ariana Grande due to a row over how much TikTok was paying. 

The fight had led to Universal withdrawing music from some of the world's most famous singers. 

The dispute appears to have been settled as the companies announced "improved remuneration" for artists.

More than 10,500 black cab drivers in London have launched a £250m legal case against Uber. 

They accuse the app of breaking the capital's taxi booking rules and deliberately misleading authorities to secure a licence. 

Transport for London (TfL) rules state drivers cannot take bookings directly from customers and must instead use a centralised system. 

The drivers, who are being advised by law firm Mishcon de Reya, argue they have faced unfair competition from Uber and that it knowingly broke these rules. 

Uber has denied these allegations and said the claims are unfounded.

The company has faced numerous challenges in London, including refusals from TfL to renew its licence which were later successfully appealed. 

Billie Eilish fans are complaining about "outrageous" ticket prices for her Hit Me Hard and Soft tour.

The 22-year-old singer unveiled an 81-date tour programme this week, sending fans rushing to secure tickets.

But some expressed disbelief on social media at the prices.

"I know I moan about this all the time, but look at the price of Billie Eilish tickets," one fan called Marianne wrote on X, sharing a screenshot of seated tickets priced at £398.50. 

"Something seriously needs to be done about ticket prices, it's f*****g outrageous!" 

Another complained they had paid less for Taylor Swift's Eras Tour, which was also criticised for high ticket prices.

A fan called Liv tagged Eilish, Live Nation and Ticketmaster, writing: "Are you ok? £145 for standing tickets is atrocious."

Thousands of people who receive government benefits, including Universal Credit, will be paid as early as tomorrow.

This is because there's a bank holiday coming up on 6 May which will affect benefits paid by both the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and HMRC (they don't pay benefits on bank holidays).

A statement on the government website reads: "If your payment date is on a weekend or a bank holiday you'll usually be paid on the working day before. This may be different for tax credits and child benefit."

Here are the 11 different government benefits that are expected to be paid early:

• Universal credit;
• State Pension;
• Pension Credit;
• Disability Living Allowance;
• Attendance Allowance;
• Carer's Allowance;
• Child Benefit;
• Income Support;
• Jobseekers Allowance;
• Personal Independence Payment;
• Tax credits (such as Working Tax Credit)

Will your benefit payment change?

No, you'll be paid the same amount you usually receive.

Benefits are usually paid straight into your bank, building society or credit account.

Goldman Sachs is removing a cap on bonuses for London-based staff, paving the way for it to resume making multimillion pound payouts to its best-performing traders and dealmakers.

Sky News can exclusively reveal the Wall Street banking giant notified its UK employees today that it had decided to abolish the existing pay ratio imposed under European Union rules and which the government recently decided to scrap.

In a video message to staff, Richard Gnodde, chief executive of Goldman Sachs International, which comprises its operations outside the US, said it had decided to bring its remuneration policy in Britain in line with its operations elsewhere in the world.

"We are a global firm and to the extent possible we adopt a consistent global approach across everything we do," Mr Gnodde said in the message, which has been relayed to Sky News.

"The bonus cap rules were an important factor preventing us from being consistent in the area of compensation."

Read more here ...

Aldi's market share has fallen - as people seemingly head back to traditional supermarkets for their shopping.

Aldi's share of the grocery market slipped from 10.8% to 10.4% in the 12 weeks to 20 April.

NIQ data shows sales rose just 1.3% in the period - for Morrisons it was 4.4%, Tesco 5.8% and Sainsbury's 6.6%.

Asda was the laggard with sales falling 0.9%.

Ocado is the fastest growing retailer with sales up 12%.

Aldi's rival discounter, Lidl, saw sales surge 9.5%, bumping its market share up to 8.2%. Media campaigns highlighting new ranges helped, NIQ said.

A Santander online outage is affecting thousands of UK customers.

Over 2,000 reports have been made on Downdetector - indicting the issue is widespread.

Customers have been met with messages like this...

Santander wrote on X: "We are aware some customers are experiencing issues accessing online services, we apologise for any inconvenience this has caused.

"We're working hard to resolve this as soon as possible."

Following on from our previous post, and the OECD also says the UK will grow more slowly next year than any other major advanced economy.

It puts this down to stealth taxes and high interest rates squeezing the economy.

The organisation, which is based in Paris, downgraded its forecasts for GDP to 0.4% this year and 1% in 2025.

In February, the UK had been in the middle of the rankings with forecast growth of 0.7% this year and 1.2% next.

The OECD pointed to the fact "tax receipts keep rising towards historic highs" - with National Insurance cuts not offsetting the additional burden Britons are feeling due to tax thresholds not rising along with inflation due to a government freeze.

Some good news is expected for UK workers as the OECD said there will be "stronger" wage growth when inflation is factored in against pay.

One of the world's leading economic authorities has warned the UK that borrowing should remain expensive until the rate of price rises eases further and stays there.

Interest rates, which are at a  post-2008-era high of 5.25% , should stay there, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

"The fiscal and monetary policy mix is adequately restrictive and should remain so until inflation returns durably to target," the OECD's economic outlook for 2024 said.

It's an endorsement for the approach of the  Bank of England  whose statements on inflation have not indicated an imminent rate cut.

The OECD anticipates inflation will be "elevated" at 3.3% in 2024 and 2.5% in 2025 - above the Bank's 2% target.

No rate cut will come until at least August, the OECD added.

Be the first to get Breaking News

Install the Sky News app for free

The Most Important Rule You Need to Make in Your Home

There is only one rule you need to make in your home. Only one. However, it is not an easy one to implement. It demands quite a bit of restraint and character building. And it means that parents commit to it 100 percent. However, if you do commit you will see the fruits of your labor.

What is the rule? I bet you’re really curious by now. That rule is… drum roll…respect. Having respect for others and for their possessions. Respect for the dignity, feelings, and needs of the people that you live with and in general those around you.

Respect is Apparent in a Home

In a family, there are many interactions going on each day and really every moment that family members are together. When you walk into a home you can usually detect when family members follow this rule. You can sense how a husband and wife speak to each other, you can see how the children play together or how older children relate to each other.

There may be rules in place in a home and the house may be orderly, but if there is a  lack of respect, no other rule can make up for the lack thereof. When the inherent dignity of some or all of the members of the home is not upheld, it is almost immediately apparent.

Work With Your Spouse to bring Respect into the Home

So how do we make sure that the respect of family members is paramount in a home? First of all the parents must commit to this rule. And it is not easy. They must work to always speak to each other respectfully, even when one of the members is late or forgot to do something really important. Even when you had a hard day or you are exhausted.

And that is not always easy. It’s something that requires effort and commitment and gratitude for the blessings of a marriage and a home.

However, when children grow up in a home and they see basic respect upheld between their parents the majority of the time (everyone slips once in a while!), then it is much easier to make sure that the children will be respectful as well. Following the one rule of respect will pay off big time in many aspects of the family.

What is Respect?

What is respect really? Respect means that we acknowledge that another member of our family has the same needs and right to exist as I do and I have to respect that right. If I would like to be spoken to respectfully then I must speak to you respectfully. If I would like to find the bathroom clean and ready to use, then I need to leave it that way for the next person.

The idea is a simple one, but not always easy to implement. We are busy, forgetful and it is not always easy to think about the needs of others and that is why this rule should be paramount in our homes. It is how our children learn to be thoughtful of others and unselfish in the world around them.

When a child sees respect between his/her parents, s/he learns to respect others. This will filter down into all aspects of family living.

When there is respect between parents and between siblings, that respect is seen in almost every aspect of the home.

What does respect look like?

• Respect means that children recognize, respect and admire their parents.
• It means that they do not interrupt their parents or their siblings
• Family members don’t say hurtful things
• It means that others rights are just as important as yours
• We respect our home  and everyone cleans up after themselves
• It means that we respect what others do for us and make that job easier for them in any way that we can.
• We think about how others are feeling and we call to let them know if our plans have changed so that they can make the necessary adjustments

So from the above, it is clear that having all family members following this one rule extends to many aspects of the home. It means that by considering the needs and feelings of others, we avoid a lot of frustration, pain, and ill feelings.

Don’t get me wrong, This requires a lot of forethought and planning. It is not easy to make sure that everyone follows this one cardinal rule. But with persistence and determination, it is more than possible.

We Can Teach Respect, Respectfully

And don’t forget to implement this rule in a respectful way. You can’t teach your kids to speak respectfully by yelling at them. However, when you speak respectfully (albeit firmly) to your kids, they learn to speak respectfully to their parents and their siblings.

When each of the above points is taught and reinforced and implemented consistently, they become second nature. However, all of the above is based on the one foundational principle of respect.

So what do you do if you feel that your home could use improvement in the foundational principle of respect? …If the members of your family are not abiding by this important rule?

If You Don’t Have Support, Start with Yourself

The first place to start is with yourself. It is sometimes difficult to change other people especially when they may not feel that there is a reason to change. Decide how you will begin to speak more respectfully to your spouse. He will notice the difference and so will your children. It might take some time but eventually, you will start to notice changes.

Again this takes willpower. You may have to ignore some negative comments and confusion. You are rocking the boat but your determined stance to change the atmosphere in your home will pay off.

If you feel that your spouse does want to change then start a conversation. Rather than pointing a finger, let him know that you are very bothered by the atmosphere in your home and ask if he would be willing to work with you to make it better. Very often those closest to us do want to change, but just don’t know how.

If your spouse is agreeable, try to identify the times or circumstances that the disrespect is most prevalent. If your spouse tends to get angry and disrespectful when he is hungry or a meal is late, see if you can make some changes to avoid this.

Make the Rule and Set Clear Guidelines

If your children tend to squabble over which show to watch or are constantly fighting, you as parents need to set some clear and firm guidelines. If your spouse doesn’t call when he changes plans, let him know how much this throws you off.

By discussing the areas that are causing tension and disrespect in the home, each party can make the necessary adjustments to ease these tensions. These changes must be made with patience. Habits are not easy to break and pleasant reminders can help others remember that this is important to you.

However, with patience and commitment, small changes can lead to big results.

With children, consistency and firmness can also lead to positive change. If children persist in fighting or not cooperating, consequences need to be implemented. If they cannot decide peacefully about a show or a game, then you might need to explain what you want to see. It may take several interventions and you modeling how to resolve the problem. If you have done your part and the kids cannot resolve their differences you may need to temporarily take the game away or nix the TV.

But remember, it is important to implement changes respectfully. Explain to your children that how we treat each other is an important value in your home and respect is the golden rule. Implement the consequence with respect and explanations and you will see that your children will begin to treat each other more respectfully.

You can change the atmosphere in your home. You can implement the above principles and see real results. With patience and commitment, you can create a respectful environment in your home. Your family will benefit from this one all-important rule. Implement respect and you will be glad that you did!

Please like and share this post with your friends!

You may also like:

How to Cure a Teen Suffering From a Lack of Self Awareness

How to Raise Your Child with a Strong Sense of Purpose

Never miss a post!

Receive every post in your inbox

I will never give away, trade or sell your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Related Posts

Who Says That Natural Consequences Are Not Positive Parenting?

Are You Struggling to be an Effective Parent?

Parents Have the Most Powerful Influence on their Children

Are you Unintentionally Causing Your Child to Misbehave?

How to Stop Parenting Like “One Size Fits All”

Leave a comment cancel reply.

As a mom of 3 young boys, I'm always apologizing for how messy our house is. I need to stop.

• Every time I have someone over to my house, I apologize for the state it is in. 
• I'm a mom of three boys and our house is constantly being turned upside down by them. 
• I know that when they are out of the house, I will miss the chaos and mess that came with them. 

If you're coming over to my house for a playdate or any other social occasion, I can guarantee that the next words I say to you after "Hello" will be, "I'm so sorry about the mess ."

Even if I've tidied up prior to my guests' arrival and the house is looking pretty organized, those words of apology will still come out of my mouth. It seems to be an involuntary impulse — and my husband thinks it's ridiculous. I don't think I've ever heard him say it, even when the house is genuinely a mess.

Related stories

But as a mother, I know I'm not alone in doing it — most of my friends do it, too.

Why do we do it?

I know that my friends love me for me and would never comment on the state of my house or say anything to hurt my feelings. They're here to see me and my family so we can catch up and have a nice time together. But for some reason, I always worry about what the house might look like through their eyes and what opinions they might be forming about me if things are a bit chaotic.

We have three young boys , so our house frequently gets turned upside down when they make dens and play with their friends. I never care about the mess as long as they're happy and having fun. And trying to keep the house neat and tidy all of the time just feels like a bit of a waste of my time anyway.

Society still expects women, and mothers in particular, to be able to have it all and do it all. Many of us are juggling careers, childcare, responsibilities in the home, and much, much more. Our inner critics might be concerned that friends and family will perceive an untidy home as a sign that we've dropped the ball and are struggling to cope. I know this is the case for me. And when life gets overwhelming, the laundry will pile up and other chores may be neglected.

It's a defense mechanism

Georgina Sturmer — who counsels women through life challenges — explains that my apology isn't really an apology at all but actually a defense mechanism.

"It's a way to protect us from how we might feel if someone else sees our messy home — protection from anxiety, fear or embarrassment," Sturmer told Business Insider.

This is definitely the case for me, and I don't just apologize for the mess. If I'm cooking dinner for friends, I'll make excuses about its flavor, texture, or presentation before they've even tasted the food.

Sturmer says it's important to remember that we have no control over what people think of us. But for many of us it becomes a learned behavior to be self-critical and to offer apologies for trivial things. "Instead, I'd suggest noticing what it feels like when the urge to apologize comes over us and thinking about how it would feel to find a different way of coping and of reassuring ourselves," Sturmer said.

The reality is that when our children grow up and have moved out, we'll inevitably feel wistful for the noisy, messy and laughter-filled days at home. We won't remember the sticky surfaces or wish that we'd tidied up more.

So I've decided that the next time my friends come over, they'll be greeted with a "Hello" followed by a "Come in, it's great to see you". We'll step over the Lego, cars and trains, leave the kids to go wild, and just enjoy being together.

Watch: How a 'hoarder's house' is deep cleaned

• Main content

• lol Badge Feed
• win Badge Feed
• trending Badge Feed

Browse links

• © 2024 BuzzFeed, Inc
• Consent Preferences
• Accessibility Statement

People Are Sharing Their Most Hated New Home Design Trends, And I Agree With Them

Consensus: People are over the gray floors!

BuzzFeed Contributor

Reddit user u/wazzel2u recently asked, " What is a terrible trend found in new home design? " and the masses found a lot of answers to agree on.

Here's what they had to say:, "no door between the master bedroom and master bathroom. it’s so annoying. the last three houses i’ve lived in have had this issue. i like to be able to close the door when i take a bath or shower.".

— u/oleander4tea

People on the Netflix reality show Instant Hotel had similar complaints about the top-rated home in Season 2.

User u/ 02K30C1 said the same thing, but in a less polite way: "Open concept bathrooms. I don’t need to see you taking a dump from my bed."

Yeah, can't argue with that., "lack of storage space. just bought a new home and didn’t realize how little space there was. we have one storage closet upstairs. that’s it.".

—u/ A_Bit_Off_Kilter

So true. These days, a linen closet is a rare find, especially in NYC apartments.

"Hollow interior doors that don't keep sound out from within the house and hallways — especially hollow bedroom doors when you're trying to sleep."

—u/ Back2Bach

Oof. Another major city apartment building problem!

"Bedrooms that are only juuuuust big enough for a double or queen bed and a nightstand."

—u/ makovince

Yes! Did all of these commenters team up just to talk about my apartment woes?

"Most sinks are absolutely terrible. Looking better is nice, but not at the expense of hitting your hand on the bowl every time you wash your hands."

"the lack of secret bookshelf doors. i mean, who designs their custom home and does not include a bookshelf secret door people design houses for a reason, and that reason should be secret doors.".

-u/ foxsable

"I really don’t like the fireplace design where you are intended to put your TV over it. A TV is way too high when over the fireplace."

—u/ 0rangePolarBear

This was a popular one.

"TV over fireplace. I refuse to have a place where this is expected or the only option. I love my gas fireplace and run it six months a year. I would cook a TV if mounted to the mantel. Also, its awful aesthetics. I can't stand it."

-u/ SouthernFloss  

"I hate the design of homes that have a massive garage in the front; 'Welcome to my garage — the home is in the back.'"

—u/ groundsgonesour

"I don't know if it's new new, but it drives me crazy when people replace cabinetry with open shelves. Don't people understand dust? Bugs ring a bell? Pet hair? Speaking of pets, how do you keep your cats from messing around with that setup?"

—u/ l yan-cat

"Big showers but no bathtub. Grayish-colored floors. Shelves instead of upper cabinets."

—u/ sonia72quebec

"Kitchens that they cram into a narrow rectangle. A lot of apartments and town houses come with these. They are so narrow that if you open the fridge door, nobody can walk past you. A kitchen should be open, not walled in all sides and shaped like a narrow rectangle. It drives me crazy when I see these."

—u/ Effective_James

"Gray. Laminate. Floors."

—u/ bananarussian

"Painting over bricks. It's just like how people used to put carpet over nice wood hard floors."

—u/ dunkinnd

Some people got really passionate.

"why is everything so damn bland why are white and gray the popular colors whatever happened to color why can't we have living rooms wallpapered with big bright flowers, long suede couches in deep fuchsia and mile-high blue carpets that you sink into when you walk whatever happened to walnut paneling and colored subway tile in the bathroom whatever happened to delicate stenciled flowers on the inside of the bowl of the bathroom sink when did we lose our personalities".

—u/ carmelacorleone

"Beating minimalism to death with a sledgehammer. Everything being gray/white, even painting over gorgeous natural wood, practically zero color anywhere. Just breaks my heart when they take beautiful vintage homes and renovate them to shit by making everything look so sterile."

—u/ notagoodusername183

This person would hate to see what Molly Mae is planning to do to her bathroom.

Katie @katieairving Breaks my heart that Molly Mae’s new house has the most beautiful green tiles and she’s going to rip it out for them white ones 😣😣😣 08:45 PM - 25 Mar 2022 Reply Retweet Favorite

Some people had milder opinions.

"i don’t get why people need a bowl full of ornaments or just shiny balls.".

-u/ Can_of_Eggs

Best comment goes to u/ NotSoGreatOldOne for this one: "Not being able to afford one."

What do you think? Did they leave any really important ones out? What's your most hated new home design trend? Let us know in the comments!

Note: Some responses have been edited for length and/or clarity.

Share This Article

Home Rule Movement: Essay & Important Notes

The Indian Independence Movement spanned over several years and several other movements became turning points in the struggle for freedom. One such movement was the Home Rule Movement . The Home Rule Movement was launched to demand dominion status for India and freedom from British Rule. The proponents of the movement were Annie Besant and Bal Gangadhar Tilak .

Annie Besant (left) and Bal Gangadhar Tilak (right)

The objectives of the Home Rule Movement were to:

• Achieve self-government for India.
• Promote political education and agitation for self-government.
• Enable the Indians to speak up against the suppression of the British government.
• Demand more political representation for the Indians from the Britishers.
• Revive political activity in India to strengthen and maintain the principles of the Congress.

Causes for the Beginning of the Movement

The Home Rule Movement was fueled by several different factors. Some of the causes for the beginning of the movement included the failure of the Government of India Act, 1919 to impress the Indians and its political leaders that led to the launch of the Home Rule Movement.

The split of the Congress in 1907 and the imprisonment of Bal Gangadhar Tilak had brought about a lull and silence in the political arena of India. However, the release of Bal Gangadhar Tilak revived the national movement. Tilak also understood the importance of the Congress in India and wanted to get readmitted into the party.

Annie Besant (an Irish orator, women rights activist, and writer) worked in India to support the Irish and Indian Home Rule Movements. It was on her persuasion that in the Indian National Congress Session of 1915, the extremists joined back the Congress. However, both Tilak and Annie Besant were not able to convince the Congress of setting up Home Rule Leagues initially. In the year 1916, Annie Besant convinced the Congress of educative propaganda and the establishment of local-level committees. She was able to set up the Home Rule League in September 1916. Tilak, on the other hand, was not bound by Congress in any of his activities and had set up the Home Rule League in April 1916.

There was a mutual understanding between the two Home Rule Leagues. Tilak’s league worked in Karnataka, Maharashtra (not Bombay), Berar, and the Central Provinces. Annie Besant’s league worked in the rest of the country. The two leagues never came close to each other because of the fear of falling out.

Activities of the Movement

The two home rule leagues in an attempt to achieve self-government in India adopted the following activities:

• Demonstrations and agitations against the British government.
• Public meetings wherein the leaders gave fiery speeches.
• Nationwide protests led to the arrest of Annie Besant.

Significance of the Movement

The Home Rule Movement was very significant because of its activities, its reach, and objectives. The Home Rule Movement is considered important because of the following reasons:

• The Home Rule Leagues carried out its activities throughout the year as opposed to the Congress.
• The movement attracted a lot of support from educated Indians and the two leagues together were able to amass almost 40,000 members.
• The movement also received support from several leaders of Congress as well as the Muslim League.
• The Home Rule Movement was able to unite the moderates, the extremists as well as the Muslim League for a short time period.
• With the help of the movement, many Indians were politically educated.
• The movement led to the Montague Declaration in 1917. It was declared that more Indians would be given government positions. The declaration called August Declaration implied that the demand for home rule would not be considered seditious.

Decline and Eventual Failure of the Movement

Several reasons led to the decline and failure of the movement. Some of them are given below:

• The home rule leagues were not able to gather a lot of support from the Muslims. Additionally, Anglo-Indians and non-Brahmins did not support the movement because they thought that the movement was for highly educated Indians.
• The movement was not a mass movement and was limited to college students and educated people.
• The moderates did not take the movement further because they were satisfied with the proposals of the government.
• Annie Besant was not able to provide strong and stable leadership to her followers.
• In the year 1918, Tilak went to England and his absence led to the abatement of the movement.

The Home Rule Movement was able to make the Indians politically educated about their freedom and rights and self-government.

Important Notes

• In December 1915, Bal Gangadhar Tilak started a home rule league in Pune. Tilak proclaimed that ‘Swaraj is my birthright and I will have it’. He started his Home Rule League in Maharashtra, Central Provinces, Karnataka, and the Berar region.
• Annie Besant started the Home Rule League to demand self-government at all levels of administration.
• The Home Rule Movement led to women’s participation in large numbers.
• The League joined hands with Indian National Congress demanding self-rule.
• As a result of the movement, the Government of India Act, 1919 was passed.

Related Posts

The Ideas of Giuseppe Mazzini

French Revolution: Essay & Important Notes

Chipko Movement: Essay, Important Notes

Non-Cooperation Movement: Essay & Important Notes

Political History of Greece

Khilafat Movement: Essay & Important Notes

Add comment cancel reply.

• Share full article

For more audio journalism and storytelling, download New York Times Audio , a new iOS app available for news subscribers.

The Secret Push That Could Ban TikTok

U.s. lawmakers have long worried that the chinese government could use the app to spread propaganda..

This transcript was created using speech recognition software. While it has been reviewed by human transcribers, it may contain errors. Please review the episode audio before quoting from this transcript and email [email protected] with any questions.

From “The New York Times,” I’m Sabrina Tavernise. And this is “The Daily.”

[THEME MUSIC]

American lawmakers have tried for years to ban the video app TikTok over concerns that its ties to China pose a national security risk. Last week, they passed a law that might finally do it. Today, my colleague, Sapna Maheshwari, on the secret effort behind the law and what a ban would mean for the company’s 170 million American users.

It’s Tuesday, April 30.

So Sapna, tell me about this law that just passed that potentially bans the social media app TikTok. We’ve seen efforts in the past to rein in TikTok, but this one really seems like the most substantial yet.

It’s a huge deal. What this law really does is it puts the future of this hugely popular app with 170 million American users into question. TikTok has reshaped the way many people listen to music. It’s changed the way we cook. It’s made a whole different kind of celebrity.

But it’s never been able to shake these concerns around the fact that it has really close ties to China. It’s owned by a Chinese company, ByteDance. And lawmakers, for years, have been worried that the Chinese government could somehow use ByteDance and TikTok to get information on Americans or possibly spread propaganda.

President Trump tried to ban it in 2020. The State of Montana tried to ban this app last year. TikTok has largely survived those challenges, but this time it could actually be banned in the United States.

So let’s talk about this. Why did this effort succeed where the other ones failed?

So it’s an interesting story.

Here we go.

The committee will come to order.

And it really dates back to this hearing about a year ago that Congress had with Shou Chew, the CEO of TikTok.

Mr. Chew, you are here because the American people need the truth about the threat TikTok poses to our national and personal security.

Members of the committee, thank you for your time.

— TikTok has repeatedly said that it has addressed these national security concerns and that there’s no issue here. And you can hear that when Shou Chew testified.

Let me start by addressing a few misconceptions about ByteDance of which we are a subsidiary. ByteDance is not owned or controlled by the Chinese government.

He’s saying American investors are behind ByteDance.

Now, TikTok itself is not available in mainland China. We’re headquartered in Los Angeles and in Singapore.

And I myself am Singaporean. I live in Singapore.

The bottom line is this — American data, stored on American soil, by an American company, overseen by American personnel.

And we are actually going above and beyond what American technology companies do to keep things safe.

And I look forward to your questions. Thank you very much.

And is Congress convinced by that?

Congress is not convinced by that.

ByteDance is a Chinese company?

Well, ByteDance owns many businesses that operates in China.

Is it or is it not a Chinese company?

Congressman, the way we look at it, it was founded by Chinese entrepreneurs.

No, no, no, no. I’m not asking how you look at it. Fact, is it a Chinese company or not? For example, Dell is a company —

It was this really fiery, five-hour hearing, where Republicans and Democrats asked really contentious questions.

We do not promote or remove content at the request of the Chinese government. Will you repeat —

The question is, are you percent certain that they cannot use your company to promote such messages?

It is our commitment to this committee and all our users that we will keep this free from any manipulation by any government.

OK. If you can’t say it 100 percent certain I take that as a no.

There’s this underlying sense of distrust around the company and its ties to China.

I will remind you that making false or misleading statements to Congress is a federal crime.

I understand. Again, you can go on our platform. You will find that content.

And it becomes clear through the hearing that, across the board, Republicans and Democrats largely feel the same way.

Mr. Chew, I got to hand it to you. You’ve actually done something that in the last three to four years has not happened except for the exception of maybe Vladimir Putin. You have unified Republicans and Democrats.

So within weeks of this hearing, this small group of lawmakers gets together. And they say, let’s come up with a law that works where all the other ones have failed and actually make TikTok answer to its Chinese connections once and for all.

So tell me about this small group of lawmakers. Who are they?

So it starts with Republicans. Among them is Steve Scalise, one of the most powerful Republicans in the House. And a small group sort of works together for a few months, but they realize that in order to really make this law work, they’re going to need Democrats. So they end up working through this House Committee that’s focused on China and competition. And this is where the bulk of the work on this bill takes place.

And just to note, this is a really small group. There’s less than 20 key players who are working on this. And all throughout, they are keeping this very, very secret.

And why exactly are they keeping it secret? What’s the point of that?

So this group really wanted to keep this out of the eyes of TikTok, which has a huge lobbying presence in DC, and has successfully worked to kill bills that targeted TikTok in the past. And what they’re really doing is looking at all of the past efforts to either force a sale or a ban of TikTok, and trying to work their way through why those plans didn’t succeed and what they can do differently.

But while the lawmakers are working on this bill, something big happens that kind of changes the politics around it. And that’s October 7.

Your social media feeds are unique to you, but could they be shaping how you view the Israel-Gaza War? The BBC’s —

As the war breaks out and people start getting information about it, a lot of people are getting information about the Israel-Hamas War on TikTok, especially young people.

Social media algorithms seem to be driving some users towards increasingly divisive posts —

And there’s this big messy argument spilling out into living rooms and all over the internet, and, of course on TikTok. And it’s getting very heated. For instance, there’s this moment in the fall where a bunch of TikTok users start sharing this old manifesto.

I read Osama bin Laden’s “Letter to America.”

It’s wild, and everyone should read it.

Go read “A Letter to America.” Seriously, go read it.

That was actually written by Osama bin Laden, defending the 9/11 attacks and criticizing the United States’ support of Israel. TikTok users start trying to tie it to the modern day conflict.

Reading this letter, it becomes apparent to me that the actions of 9/11 were all just the buildup of our government failing other nations.

The way this letter is going viral right now is giving me the greatest sense of relief. Now it’s all coming to light because of Palestine.

And there’s these accusations that TikTok may be promoting one side of the conflict over the other. And a couple of researchers look at hashtags around Palestine, and they say that the data they pulled shows that TikTok is showing way more pro-Palestine videos and not so much for Israel. And this sets off huge alarm bells for this small group of lawmakers.

But isn’t that just a function of the fact that TikTok, at this point, is the public square in the United States for young people? I mean, this is what young people were talking about, and this is where they’re doing the talking.

TikTok has pushed back really forcefully against these accusations. They said that Gallup polls show that young people view Israel differently than older generations. They say that they’re not the ones influencing what people post, that the hashtags and the videos are a reflection of the user base and nothing that they’re doing to influence.

But for lawmakers, this doesn’t really make their concerns go away. Instead, this conflict shows them how TikTok could be used to spread propaganda. It made lawmakers feel that TikTok could be really dangerous when it comes to shaping the views of Americans on foreign policy, on US elections. And what it also does is, it provides this driving force to this group that’s drafting this bill. And they suddenly see that this might be a way to bring more people into their effort.

And so heading into November against this backdrop, they even bring in the White House and the Justice Department to help work on this bill. And with the White House, they want to make sure that this is a bill that the president will support. And they work with the Justice Department to shore up the language in the bill to help defend against court challenges.

Because the Justice Department, of course, would be the one that would have to defend the bill, right?

That’s exactly right. And so they’re trying to make it as rock solid as possible so that they can win in court when TikTok challenges this law. And so March rolls around, and they decide that it’s time to unveil this bill that they’ve been working on for close to a year.

The battle over TikTok on Capitol Hill is intensifying.

This morning, House lawmakers have agreed unanimously to move a bill to a full floor vote.

And TikTok is caught completely flat footed. They didn’t see this coming. And this is just what the group wanted. So TikTok has this army of lobbyists that’s suddenly scrambling. And they go into damage control mode. They start reaching out to members of Congress.

This app is so much more than just an app for dumb TikTok dances.

They fly a group of TikTok stars and small businesses to come to DC —

This is a life-changing apps.

— and lobby on the steps of the Capitol and meet with lawmakers.

Standing up here with all these amazing TikTokers behind me is a complete honor, and every single one of them would voice their opinion just like this. This is how we feel. This has to stop.

They set up interviews between these TikTok creators, as they’re known, and big TV shows and news programs. And they’re doing everything they can to fight against this bill before it goes any further. And then they decide to do something unusual, which is use TikTok itself to try and derail this bill.

How exactly do they do that?

So days after this bill is announced, a ton of TikTok users get a message when they open the TikTok app that basically says, call Congress and tell them not to ban TikTok.

Hmm. OK. So like, literally this window comes up and says, call Congress. Here you go.

Exactly. You can enter your zip code, and there’s a button that appears. And you can press it, and the call goes straight to your representative.

So offices are quickly overwhelmed by calls. And TikTok sent out this message to users on the same day that a House committee is going into vote on this bill and whether to move it forward. And so the stunt happens. They go into vote, and they come out, and it’s 50 to 0 in support of the bill.

One of the representatives who worked on the bill said that this stunt by TikTok turned a lot of no’s into yeses and yeses into, quote, “hell yeses.”

[LAUGHS]: so the whole episode sounds like it actually backfired, right? Like, TikTok’s stunt essentially just confirmed what was the deepest fears of lawmakers about this company, that the app could be used to influence American politics.

That’s definitely how a lot of lawmakers viewed it. And when this bill is brought to the full House a week later, it passes by an overwhelming majority. And weeks later, it passes in the Senate as part of a broader aid package. And on Wednesday, it’s signed into law by President Biden.

But now the question is, what does it mean? Like, how will this actually work? And how will it affect the tens of millions of Americans who use TikTok every day?

[MUSIC PLAYING]

We’ll be right back.

So Sapna, now that Biden has signed this bill, what does it actually mean in practice for TikTok? What does the law do?

So the law is really trying to push ByteDance, the company that owns TikTok, to sell to a non-Chinese owner. And the company basically has nine months for this sale to happen. There’s an option for President Biden to add another three months to that clock. And if the company doesn’t find a buyer or refuses to be sold, it will be banned.

And what would a ban actually mean, Sapna? I mean, people would still have the app on their phones, right? So it wouldn’t disappear overnight.

Yeah, no one’s coming to pick up your phone and to forcibly delete this thing. What the law says is that app stores and web hosting services wouldn’t be allowed to carry TikTok anymore. So basically, it would kind of die a slow death over time, where it wouldn’t be updated and just kind of peter out.

So the bottom line here is that the clock has started on this potential sale, right? They have 12 months to find a buyer. So what are the obstacles here? I mean, it sounds pretty ferociously complicated.

There’s a ton of challenges here. And it’s a very messy choose-your-own adventure. So one of the first big questions is who could buy this?

ByteDance and TikTok are private. We don’t know their financials. But analysts estimate that it will cost tens of billions of dollars. That narrows the buying pool pretty quickly. And a lot of the companies that could afford to buy it, like Meta, the owner of Facebook, or Google, which owns YouTube, would probably be kicked out of the running because they are simply too big. Regulators would say, you already own these big apps. You can’t possibly add this to your stable.

There’d be a monopoly concern there.

Exactly. And then, there’s a lot of questions around how this would work, technically. ByteDance and TikTok are very much global organizations. You have the CEO in Singapore. They have huge operations in Ireland. They have this big workforce in the US. And of course, they do have engineers in China.

So how do you extract all those things, make it all work? It’s a very big international transaction.

And then there is the chance that the Chinese government blocks this sale and says, you cannot do this, ByteDance. We will not allow it.

So Sapna, how does that actually work, though, in terms of China? I mean, can China actually just ban the sale of this company? I mean, it is a private company after all, right?

Well, here’s one way it could work. The Chinese government could block the export of TikTok’s algorithm. And let me explain that in kind of plain English.

They could basically block the technology that fuels the TikTokiness of this app, the recommendations, the magic of it, why you see what you see when you’re looking at TikTok.

TikTokiness, is that an adjective?

That is now an adjective.

[LAUGHS]: Nice.

And there’s a chance that Beijing could say, hey, you can’t export this technology. That is proprietary. And if that happens, that suddenly makes TikTok way, way less valuable.

So the Chinese government could let the sale go through potentially, but as a kind of an empty shell, right? The thing that makes TikTok TikTok, the algorithm, wouldn’t be part of the company. So that probably isn’t very appealing for a potential buyer.

Exactly. And I mean, the role of the Chinese government here is really interesting. I’ve talked to experts who say, well, if the Chinese government interferes to try and block a sale of this app, doesn’t that underscore and prove all the concerns that have been expressed by American lawmakers?

If you’re worried about China being in control of this thing, well, that just confirmed your fears.

Exactly. And I mean, it’s an interesting thing that ByteDance and TikTok have to grapple with.

So bottom line here — selling TikTok is quite complicated, and perhaps not even possible for these reasons that you’re giving, right? I mean, not least of which because the Chinese government might not allow the algorithm to leave the country. And that’s not something that the US Congress has a lot of control over.

So is this law fundamentally just a ban, then?

That’s what TikTok is calling it. Right after this bill was signed into law on Wednesday —

Make no mistake, this is a ban, a ban on TikTok and a ban on you and your voice.

— Tiktok’s CEO made a TikTok — what else?— that explained the company’s position.

Because the freedom of expression on TikTok reflects the same American values that make the United States a beacon of freedom.

He actually argued that TikTok reflects American values.

TikTok gives everyday Americans a powerful way to be seen and heard. And that’s why so many people have made TikTok part of their daily lives.

And he said that this law infringes on the First Amendment free speech rights of Americans who love it and who use it every day.

The facts and the Constitution are on our side, and we expect to prevail again.

So it’s very clear that TikTok plans to challenge this law in court. And the court fight to follow will determine the fate of TikTok’s future in the US.

So is that First Amendment argument that the TikTok CEO is making here going to work?

Nobody wants to put money on that. I mean, the company is really approaching this with the idea that the First Amendment rights of Americans are being infringed on. But if you remember, the government has been working on this law. They’ve been anticipating those challenges. And they can justify an infringing of First Amendment rights in certain cases, including with national security concerns. And so it’ll be up to a judge on whether those concerns pass muster and justify this sale and even a potential ban of TikTok.

Got it. So TikTok will argue free speech, First Amendment. And the government will counter by saying, look, this is about China. This is about America’s national security interests.

That’s right. And the legal experts that I’ve spoken with say this is a really big and sticky area of the law, and it’s a huge case. And they really think that this will go to the Supreme Court, regardless of who wins in the first round of this.

So where does that leave the millions of Americans who use TikTok, and many of them, of course, who earn a living on the platform?

I mean, it’s really uncertain what happens now with the company, and the clock has started ticking. When I’ve looked at TikTok and looked at videos from users —

This is about the impending TikTok ban. And it just triggered me so much. It makes my blood boil, and I have to get this out there.

There’s a lot of shock —

The most success I’ve had has been here on TikTok, and now they’re trying to take it away.

This is so stupid!

— and anger.

You can’t ban apps! You can’t ban things from people!

People are confused.

Word on the street is that in the next 9 to 12 months, TikTok could be banned.

And they’re also caught a bit off guard, just because there have been these years of efforts to do something about TikTok. People on the app have been hearing about a TikTok ban, really, since 2020.

The government can take away a literal app on our phones, and we’re supposed to believe we’re free?

A few TikTokers have said, how can this be the thing that the government is pushing through so quickly?

Can we stop funding a genocide? No. Can we get free COVID tests? No. Can we stop killing the planet? No. Can we at least watch videos on an app of people doing fun things and learn about the world around us? No.

So there’s this sense of distrust and disappointment for many people who love this app.

We got rid of TikTok. You’re welcome. Protecting you from China. You know that phone was made in China. Ah!

And I think there’s also this question, too, around what about TikTok makes it so harmful? Even though it has increasingly become a place for news, there’s plenty of people who simply use this app for entertainment. And what they’re seeing out of Washington just doesn’t square with the reality they experience when they pull out their phones.

And I wonder, Sapna, I mean, just kind of stepping back for a second, let’s say this ban on TikTok succeeds. If it goes through, would Americans be better off?

It depends who you ask. For the users who love TikTok, if it actually disappeared, it would be the government taking away a place where maybe they make money, where they get their entertainment, where they figure out what to read or what to cook next. To free speech advocates, this would be dystopian, unheard of for the government to crack down on an app with such wide usage by Americans.

But for the American political class And the National security establishment, this is a necessary move, one that was years in the making, not something that was just come up with on the fly. And ultimately, it all comes down to China and this idea that you can’t have a social media app like this, a source of news like this, that is even at all at risk of being influenced by the Chinese government and our greatest adversaries.

Sapna, thank you.

Here’s what else you should know today. On Monday, in its latest high-profile showdown with pro-Palestinian protesters, Columbia University gave students until 2:00 PM to clear out from an encampment at the center of campus or face suspension. It appeared to be an effort to remove the encampment without relying on New York City Police, whose removal of a previous encampment there two weeks ago inspired similar protests on campuses across the country.

Free Palestine!

Hi, this is Sharon Otterman reporting for “The New York Times.”

00 PM deadline for protesters to clear out of the encampment at the center of Columbia University has come and gone, and there’s still quite a large contingent inside the encampment.

But Monday’s warning seemed only to galvanize the Columbia protesters and their supporters.

And hundreds of students and others from around the campus have come out to support them. They are currently walking around in a picket around the encampment.

Hundreds of students, standing for or five people deep, encircled the encampment in a show of solidarity. They were joined by members of the Columbia faculty.

There’s also dozens of faculty members, who are prepared to stand in lines in front of the main entrance to the encampment, in case Public Safety or the NYPD move in. But as of 2:00, there was no sign of that happening.

Then, on Monday evening, Columbia announced it had begun to suspend students who had failed to leave the encampment. It was unclear exactly how many students had been suspended.

[PRO-PALESTINE CHANTING]:

Today’s episode was produced by Will Reid, Rachelle Banja, and Rob Szypko. It was edited by Marc Georges and Liz O. Baylen, contains original music by Dan Powell and Marion Lozano, and was engineered by Chris Wood. Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sharon Otterman.

That’s it for “The Daily.” I’m Sabrina Tavernise. See you tomorrow.

• May 2, 2024   •   29:13 Biden Loosens Up on Weed
• May 1, 2024   •   35:16 The New Abortion Fight Before the Supreme Court
• April 30, 2024   •   27:40 The Secret Push That Could Ban TikTok
• April 29, 2024   •   47:53 Trump 2.0: What a Second Trump Presidency Would Bring
• April 26, 2024   •   21:50 Harvey Weinstein Conviction Thrown Out
• April 25, 2024   •   40:33 The Crackdown on Student Protesters
• April 24, 2024   •   32:18 Is $60 Billion Enough to Save Ukraine?
• April 23, 2024   •   30:30 A Salacious Conspiracy or Just 34 Pieces of Paper?
• April 22, 2024   •   24:30 The Evolving Danger of the New Bird Flu
• April 19, 2024   •   30:42 The Supreme Court Takes Up Homelessness
• April 18, 2024   •   30:07 The Opening Days of Trump’s First Criminal Trial
• April 17, 2024   •   24:52 Are ‘Forever Chemicals’ a Forever Problem?

Hosted by Sabrina Tavernise

Featuring Sapna Maheshwari

Produced by Will Reid ,  Rachelle Bonja and Rob Szypko

Edited by Marc Georges and Liz O. Baylen

Original music by Marion Lozano and Dan Powell

Engineered by Chris Wood

Listen and follow The Daily Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music

American lawmakers have tried for years to ban TikTok, concerned that the video app’s links to China pose a national security risk.

Sapna Maheshwari, a technology reporter for The Times, explains the behind-the-scenes push to rein in TikTok and discusses what a ban could mean for the app’s 170 million users in the United States.

On today’s episode

Sapna Maheshwari , who covers TikTok, technology and emerging media companies for The New York Times.

Background reading

A tiny group of lawmakers huddled in private about a year ago, aiming to bulletproof a bill that could ban TikTok.

The TikTok law faces court challenges, a shortage of qualified buyers and Beijing’s hostility .

Love, hate or fear it, TikTok has changed America .

There are a lot of ways to listen to The Daily. Here’s how.

We aim to make transcripts available the next workday after an episode’s publication. You can find them at the top of the page.

Special thanks to Sharon Otterman .

The Daily is made by Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Stella Tan, Alexandra Leigh Young, Lisa Chow, Eric Krupke, Marc Georges, Luke Vander Ploeg, M.J. Davis Lin, Dan Powell, Sydney Harper, Mike Benoist, Liz O. Baylen, Asthaa Chaturvedi, Rachelle Bonja, Diana Nguyen, Marion Lozano, Corey Schreppel, Rob Szypko, Elisheba Ittoop, Mooj Zadie, Patricia Willens, Rowan Niemisto, Jody Becker, Rikki Novetsky, John Ketchum, Nina Feldman, Will Reid, Carlos Prieto, Ben Calhoun, Susan Lee, Lexie Diao, Mary Wilson, Alex Stern, Dan Farrell, Sophia Lanman, Shannon Lin, Diane Wong, Devon Taylor, Alyssa Moxley, Summer Thomad, Olivia Natt, Daniel Ramirez and Brendan Klinkenberg.

Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Paula Szuchman, Lisa Tobin, Larissa Anderson, Julia Simon, Sofia Milan, Mahima Chablani, Elizabeth Davis-Moorer, Jeffrey Miranda, Renan Borelli, Maddy Masiello, Isabella Anderson and Nina Lassam.

Sapna Maheshwari reports on TikTok, technology and emerging media companies. She has been a business reporter for more than a decade. Contact her at [email protected] . More about Sapna Maheshwari

Advertisement

Home — Essay Samples — Literature — William Hazlitt — Hate According To William Hazlitt

Hate According to William Hazlitt

• Categories: William Hazlitt

About this sample

Words: 810 |

Published: Sep 19, 2019

Words: 810 | Pages: 2 | 5 min read

Works Cited

• Hazlitt, W. (1826). On the pleasure of hating. In The complete works of William Hazlitt (Vol. 10, pp. 1-18). J. Templeman.
• Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5(4), 323-370.
• Baron, R. A., & Richardson, D. R. (1994). Human aggression (2nd ed.). Plenum Press.
• Berkowitz, L. (1990). On the formation and regulation of anger and aggression: A cognitive-neoassociationistic analysis. American Psychologist, 45(4), 494-503.
• Bloom, P. (2013). Just babies: The origins of good and evil. Random House.
• Gross, J. J. (2001). Emotion regulation in adulthood: Timing is everything. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10(6), 214-219.
• Leary, M. R., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, S. K., & Downs, D. L. (1995). Self-esteem as an interpersonal monitor: The sociometer hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(3), 518-530.
• Pinker, S. (2011). The better angels of our nature: Why violence has declined. Penguin Books.
• Rottenberg, J., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Emotion and emotion regulation: A map for psychotherapy researchers. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 14(4), 323-328.
• Simon-Thomas, E. R., Keltner, D. J., Sauter, D. A., Sinicropi-Yao, L., & Abramson, A. (2009). The voice conveys specific emotions: Evidence from vocal burst displays. Emotion, 9(6), 838-846.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr Jacklynne

Verified writer

• Expert in: Literature

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

6.5 pages / 3030 words

7 pages / 3092 words

6 pages / 2729 words

3 pages / 1393 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

William Hazlitt, a prominent English essayist and critic of the late 18th and early 19th centuries, left an indelible mark on the world of literature and criticism. His innovative and insightful essays, characterized by their [...]

In the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, Orwell uses several literary techniques to develop the theme that totalitarianism is destructive. He does so by using extensive imagery, focusing on the deterioration of the Victory Mansions, [...]

Romantic love and intimacy are common features in 1984 by George Orwell. The Party works to eradicate all physical sensations of love and depersonalise sex to the point where is it referred to as a 'duty to the party' for the [...]

The fear of a dystopian future that is explored in both Fritz Lang’s film Metropolis and George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty Four is reflective of the values of the societies at the time and the context of the authors. As [...]

In order for one to exist in a totalitarian society whose government is successful in its control, one must deal on a day-to-day basis with strong persuasion and propaganda. These totalitarian societies have an iron grip on [...]

Offred and Winston, the main protagonists of the two strikingly similar dystopian fictions, The Handmaid’s Tale and 1984, have disparate fates in the endings of the novels. Julia’s fate, however, is undetermined, as (like the [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free