trying on a metaphor

❣ Chile in a Photography ❣
noise dept.
Cosmic Funnies
Mike Driver
untitled
$LAYYYTER
No title available

Andulka

tannertan36

blake kathryn
TVSTRANGERTHINGS
Aqua Utopia|海の底で記憶を紡ぐ

★

Kiana Khansmith

No title available
cherry valley forever
Cosimo Galluzzi

@theartofmadeline
Fai_Ryy

seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Malaysia
seen from Morocco
seen from Finland

seen from United Arab Emirates
seen from Pakistan
seen from United States
seen from Chile

seen from Argentina
seen from Argentina

seen from India
seen from Uruguay
seen from Pakistan

seen from Pakistan
seen from Brazil
seen from Tunisia
seen from Kazakhstan
seen from Russia
seen from Brazil
@animaobscura
Some badass women of science to help celebrate International Women’s Day!
Via: I Fucking Love Science
Hang in there. An anonymous fear submitted to Deep Dark Fears - thanks!
My new book “The Creeps” is available now from your local bookstore, Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Book Depository, iBooks, IndieBound, and wherever books are sold. You can find more information here.
via: Tysonism
When people go off about how English is the worst language, I just wanna point out a few things:
- Our future tense requires only one word (looking at you, Spanish)
- Words don’t change meanings depending on tone (Cantonese)
- We don’t live in some bizarre Beauty And The Beast world where we give inanimate objects genders (romance languages, German)
- Likewise, we don’t have have two different words for “they” because we don’t care whether “they” were male or female (Spanish, French)
- There’s no formal “you” because we don’t play mind games about whether or not we respect you (Spanish, German)
- We don’t alter the whole fucking language based on how much we respect you (Japanese)
- The letters and sounds might not be consistent, but at least we have letters, not just pictures (Mandarin)
- We don’t have a fucking stupid tense specifically for talking to two people because some idiot decided that a two-person tense was necessary (Arabic)
So yeah, I think we’re doing okay as a language
Oh and some of our plurals are irregular, but at least it’s not like every goddamn plural is an entirely new word so you have to learn every word twice
At least it’s not like that, right? Right, Arabic? WHAT A DUMB IDEA THAT WOULD BE, HUH, ARABIC?
But we do kinda have the tone thing. Like record and record, resume and resume, etc
For a few words, but you can mispronounce a lot and still get away with it. I’m referring to this:
On paper that’s technically correct, but it really doesn’t work that way.
In English, in some instances even the same word with the same dictionary entry will have incredibly different meaning based on how you say it (mostly in terms of sarcasm and such, but it’s also important to our grammar, which it isn’t as much in other languages). The Shi story is incredibly contrived, but so is the sentence “Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.“ Inanimate objects and their words may not be formally gendered, but everyone seems to refer to their cars as “she”.
“You” is the formal form (although we did drop the informal “you”, unless you count various slang terms). We absolutely do alter the whole language based on formality. Imagine a crass and vulgar exchange between blokes, now imagine that language being used in a formal presentation. In many instances our entire vocabulary and speech patterns change depending on how familiar we are with the other person. Many of these things are there; it’s just not formalised in the same way.
Male and female brains aren’t wired differently
New research, published in October in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, concluded that despite size discrepancy, there’s no functional difference between men’s and women’s brains. “Male” brains and “female” brains simply don’t exist. In fact, there’s significant overlap.
and the myth of binary biological sex and gender essentialism continues to come crumbling down
Water is wet, gender is a social construct.
if gender is a social construct do all my mtf friends choose suicidal depression instead of being happy with the junk they were born with, is that torment something The Man convinced them to choose and why can’t therapy fix it, why is only transition effective to save their lives
also if gender is a social construct how come being in awe of women and femininity doesn’t make me a lady, why do i default to a gender i generally dislike, do i just really want to spend lots of money and be unhappy or
gendered science as we know it is largely crap but there’s a pretty high concentration of baby in that bathwater
People love to take research that shows some specific thing to be basically similar, and conclude that there are no differences at all of any kind.
Actually, hell, even the article is pretty clear on this: There are tons of things that are very visibly gender-linked. What’s rare is brains that have exclusively the “male” or “female” traits. So most brains will have, say, 80% traits that are more common with one gender, 20% traits that are more common with the other. But that’s… totally different from “no difference at all”.
This is a somewhat better article about the research.
Vastderp: “Gender is a social construct” - or, more precisely for this study, that sex differences are not caused by consistent differences in brain anatomy - does not mean that being trans isn’t “real” or that Laverne Cox could have just gotten some therapy.
No analogy is perfect, but consider this: English is my native language. I have no choice about that, and even if I learn to speak other languages, English will always be my native language. But English being my native language wasn’t caused by inborn brain anatomy - it was caused by a social factor (the language my parents spoke).
Because something isn’t caused by inborn brain anatomy, doesn’t mean it’s changeable through therapy. My native language is English. Laverne Cox is a woman. We don’t have to say that these things are caused by inborn brain anatomy, to be able to affirm that Laverne Cox is as incapable of stopping being a woman, as I am of not having English be my native language.
Of course, I’m cis, which rightly limits the value of what I’m saying, since pretty much everything I say about trans issues is recycled from what I’ve heard from trans friends and read from trans writers. Julia Serano’s writing has been a big influence on my thinking on these issues, fwiw.
If gender really were “a social construct”, that would mean that there was no such thing as, say, an innate experience of “being male” or “being female”, and that would indeed mean that trans people are wrong about their claimed experiences. If we use your analogy about social factors, an accurate comparison would be if simply putting a kid in a dress and telling them they’re a girl consistently produced an adult who believed they were female and identified as female, regardless of anatomy. But that’s not true, at all! Raising kids cannot change their gender identity, so far as we know.
The fact is, we have really, really, strong evidence that humans and all other mammals have instinctive experience of something which makes them have some kind of sense of themselves as fitting into very approximate categories, and that “gender identity” is how we talk about those experiences. Our words for discussing them are arbitrary, but the experiences themselves happen.
Furthermore, the study’s not really even a tiny bit related to what most people who believe that gender identity is typically innate and biological mean when they say that it’s innate. We don’t think that every aspect of every brain feature must be exclusively male or female, or that most or all brains will be 100% aligned with one of two platonic ideals, or anything like that. We just mean that all the evidence is that your experience of yourself as “male” or “female” is a result of your brain being descended from thousands of generations of animals which used that instinct to successfully reproduce, not a result of anything you were told by any given society.
“Social construct” isn’t a phrase I used in my comment, except to suggest that Vastderp’s use of the phrase was inaccurate to this study. The phrase appears nowhere in the article I linked, nor in the Mic.com article that started this thread. So it’s a strawman to act as if I or anyone else in this discussion has been saying sex is a “social construct.”
And you’re not “using my analogy”; you’re ignoring my analogy and replacing it with a poorly-drawn hypothetical.
I’m not sure that we actually disagree that much. Here’s a quote from (again) Serano, which pretty well describes my view.
I don’t identify as a gender essentialist. Basically, gender essentialism is the idea that there are innate characteristics which all men share with each other and innate characteristics which all women share with each other. And it leads to ideas that men are naturally aggressive, or that women are naturally nurturing and so on. And those ideas erase gender diversity. There’s lots of variation among people of different genders and a lot of overlap between the genders.
Gender essentialism comes up a bit in my book because a lot of feminists have historically associated people who talk about biology as automatically being gender essentialists. That’s because usually in mainstream society, people will point to biology to make the case that there are essential differences between the genders. I don’t do that. I actually argue that biology, culture, and environment all come together in an unfathomably complex way to create the gender diversity that we see all around us.
Being a biologist has led me to realize that the whole idea of nature vs. nurture in relation to gender is completely ridiculous. Because culture can’t happen outside of us as biological beings, and biology doesn’t happen outside of culture, at least human biology doesn’t happen outside of culture. It’s well established that your culture as well as your individual experiences affect how your brain develops, so there aren’t these really strict divides.
Quality commentary
studying ancient greek philosophy
the expectation:
the reality:
The whole net neutrality discussion seems to be focusing on download speeds and access to particular services, but does anybody remember back in 2006 when AOL got caught blocking people from sending or receiving emails that expressed criticism of AOL? There was no sign that it was happening, and the emails would appear to be delivered - AOL’s mail servers would even report a normal “accepted for delivery” status code - but they’d just never show up in the recipient’s inbox. Or how about the incident a year earlier where Telus imposed fake service outages for websites expressing support for the Telecommunications Workers Union? Again, no indication that any blocking was taking place: just a error page falsely claiming the affected sites were down.
Under the proposed deregulations, this sort of thing would be explicitly permitted, and we know it’s possible because it’s been done. Now consider how much more communication happens via the Internet in 2017 than in 2005/2006. It’s not even email or websites; big chunks of the telephone network now pass through ISP-mediated VOIP channels, and those conversations would likewise be targetable by faked outages.
Like, this isn’t some dystopian sci-fi scenario; we’re talking about horseshit that major ISPs were getting up to on the sly over a decade ago, and are now about to be told can be engaged in without regulatory penalty.
This happened? That’s serious.
By the way, that kind of scenario is how censorship in China works. They don’t throw up a page saying the content is illegal, they just route it in such a way that the packets go around in circles and time out. ISPs could easily start pulling all kinds of tricks to demote things they don’t like – they have the option of not routing it correctly, slowing the bandwidth to a crawl, or just stopping the request and sending back a 404. We need to keep Net Neutrality.
Oh, yeah, it happened. The cited incidents aren’t even the half of it - they’re just a couple of the better known ones.
For example, there was the time that Comcast blocked Boston-area subscribers from accessing their GMail inboxes, and when folks called their support line to complain, they falsely claimed that it was a technical issue on Google’s end and tried to sell them a Comcast email account.
Or the time that Madison River Communications ended up getting fined for their VOIP-metering scheme when it turned out that they were interfering with 911 calls made by users in their service area.
Or the time Verizon started selectively blocking text messages sent by pro-choice advocacy groups, even to recipients who’d explicitly opted into them.
Again, none of this is hypothetical - this isn’t stuff we imagine major telecoms will do in the absence of strong net neutrality protections, but stuff they already have done, and in many cases only stopped due to regulatory pressure at the federal level.
when ppl insult modal logic...
tumblr meme culture is really just a form of neo dadaism
I’d like to clarify:
dada was a largely european art movement that took place after wwi. this time and place is not a coincidence. let me explain.
dada art made no sense. the artists who made dada lived in a world in which nothing made sense - in which conventional logic led to the senselessness of a world war. so, making art that made no sense, making - well, you can’t really call it art, so making ANTI-art that rejected the conventions that brought about that atrocity in the first place - it made total sense. (if that makes any sense.)
so the artists did weird things. new things! putting things that were already made together and calling it sculpture, cutting up bits of pictures and putting them together and calling that something to frame - this site has some nice examples.
but from my perspective - there’s serious intellectual continuity between the absurdity of attaching a bunch of tacks to the bottom of an iron, rendering it useless, and say…. bath bomb posts. Put a fucking macbook in a bath. it’s useless now. Nobody fucking cares anymore. you want something funny? you want a punchline? gun. that’s your punchline. Take it. I am laughing
in a way it could be a method of venting some of the frustration and hopelessness and dissatisfaction that tumblr’s userbase (largely, disenfranchised millennials) feels in the modern day. I can’t really speak for anyone else, but… at least from a US perspective, there’s plenty to be disillusioned about. growing up in a constant state of questionably justified war, income inequality, an economic recession caused by the actions of a handful of wealthy fucks who didn’t even get properly punished, growing awareness of police brutality, being called lazy and self-absorbed by the generations that gave us these problems in the first place… I can’t help but think that these factors (and more) could produce a similar mindset to the one that precipitated the first dada movement.
so of COURSE we make nonsense jokes. it’s a coping mechanism for a world which doesn’t make any sense.
related: this isn’t by tumblr but I have to plug UCLA’s atrocity of a virtual gallery once more. it really needs to be experienced, but… it’s definitely also millennial neo dada. from the presentation (like an unplayable video game) to the content (THE DOGS HAVE ARRIVED), it is exactly what I am talking about. it is a fucking shitpost. and it’s high art, too! I love this
tl;dr: my generation is fed up with this bullshit, and the best way that we can express that is by shitposting. alternatively, dada was an early precursor to modern shitposting and we should all thank duchamp for signing a fucking urinal
a dear friend has given a perfect update to some of my phrasing, courtesy of their word replace extension:
you see this? this is exactly what I’m fucking talking about. the thing that I’m talking about is:
I’d also say that while Dadaism was obsessed with the technological aspects of Modernity, of newspapers, of industrial mechanics and factory made clocks, neo-dadaism (of which shitposting but also the increasingly broad reach of the New Aesthetic and net aesthetics) is obsessed with the technological aspects of our time, or at the beginning of our time.
As just a comparison, the Clock in Absurdist and Dadaist art is both a symbol of the uplifting beginning of industrial relations (as one of the first complicated machines made by manufacturers, as the symbol of mankind’s ability to triumph and analyze nature and better ourselves) and as the deified symbol of horrific modernity (of demarcated time, labor hours, the oppression of the working class via managerial time), Neo-Dadaism/Absurdism has a similar relationship with early computers, which both symbolizes the utopian attitudes which we entered the digital age with, and the horrifying period we live in now, where the Digital is ever present and semi-deified.
My favorite dada satire is probably from Georges Grosz who takes the kind of robotic modernist tube people of folks like Leger:
and turns them into these mindlessly patriotic broken automatons chanting rote phrases:
And it’s so so funny to me that there’s all kinds of Gen X artists out there creating art about the millennials on their damn cellumar phones who think they’re the inheritors of this aesthetic but really it’s people who use the Madden gif generator to shitpost because they’re taking the technology meant for a coherent purpose for a particular narrative and they’re breaking it and turning it back on itself.
I think you might be onto something…
x
Aside from color palettes and materials used, I see literally zero difference.
This is one of the top 3 best posts I’ve ever seen on tumblr and I’ve been here for years.
Love
STATUS: DAY MADE.
This post has been on my mind constantly for ages.
it got better
Still one off my absolute fave posts
Let’s get the simple part out of the way: The YouTube channel ContraPoints is very good. Regardless of the viewer’s interest or lack thereof in internet culture wars, YouTube Nazis, or any of the other wide-ranging subjects covered in its videos, they’re funny, bizarre, erudite, and compelling. By Jesse Singal
Like talk radio, YouTube hosts voices from across the political spectrum. But also like talk radio, most of the biggest and most successful ones are conservative — and not William Weld conservatives, but Steve Bannon conservatives. YouTube hosts petabytes of deeply reactionary content, and that quantity is growing by the minute. “[N]o [political] bloc is anywhere near as organized or as assertive as the YouTube right and its dozens of obdurate vloggers,” pointed out Herrman. “Nor is there a coherent group on the platform articulating any sort of direct answer to this budding form of reaction — which both validates this material in the eyes of its creators and gives it room to breathe, grow and assert itself beyond its immediate vicinity.”
That a video platform so beloved by adolescents is also so thoroughly dominated by a racist, extremist, reactionary right wing is a troubling thought, and one that hasn’t been directly confronted — partly, no doubt, because YouTube flies so far beneath the radar of most adults who follow politics. But how can we check the rise of the extreme right online — not just on YouTube, but on any of the many social platforms where it appears to flourish? Contra may not have all the answers, but she has one: Meet them on their turf and outdo them.
***
Contra, who recently changed her name from the one she was born with to Natalie Parrott (I’ll just call her Contra in this piece), got an early start on YouTube, making videos about atheism back in 2008 and 2009, when the online atheist scene was the locus of some of the web’s most passionate politics. She’d given it up during grad school — she was a Ph.D. student in philosophy at Northwestern University — but when she dropped out in 2015, driving an Uber and copyediting to make money while she wrote fiction, she found herself back on what felt like a very different YouTube. The site was now recommending her far-right vloggers making videos about how feminism is cancer or how Black Lives Matter is the most racist organization in American history. “I was like, That’s interesting,” she said. “What is going on with this?”
“I was looking at YouTube and seeing things really heat up again in terms of the popularity of talking about serious political or philosophical issues and almost no one doing leftist content that engaged with the other side in any way,” she explained. “I was like, I bet I can do this, so I gave it a shot, and it’s worked out better than I expected.” Much of Contra’s interest in this sort of debate stemmed from her belief that the left was bad at it, and had a tendency to adopt self-defeating rhetorical tactics.
In her video “Why I Quit Academia,” Contra lays out what could be seen as a mini-manifesto explaining her entire YouTube channel.
“Right-wing ding-dongs like to paint academia as some sort of leftist madrassa where Marxist-feminism is the only permissible worldview,” she explains. “This is an exaggeration, but it’s not that much of an exaggeration.” She tells a story about encountering Robert Nozick’s famous libertarian tract Anarchy, State, and Utopia in a seminar and finding herself unable to coherently argue against it. “We’d all cut our teeth dissecting these little squabbles between Rawls and Habermas, and we had no experience arguing against anything as far right as the political views that most Americans actually hold,” she says. “You have to go on YouTube for the real entertainment — and frankly, the real debate.”
To engage in debate, of course, you need an audience operating in good faith, making honest objections, and asking honest questions. On the internet, where disingenuous and manipulative trolls flourish, this premise might not always be warranted. A good YouTube commentator — especially one on the left, operating in essentially hostile territory — therefore has to pick her battles very carefully. At the same time, if your goal is to convince, you can’t give up on the idea of debate entirely. “In general, I do think having a debate is good,” said Contra. “But when you have very disingenuous opponents and when they are rhetorically skilled, to show up to that debate is potentially to lose a debate to a Nazi, which is very bad, so it’s something I’m afraid of.”
Contra’s fear of losing a debate to a Nazi, as it were — not because she’s wrong, but because Nazis don’t fight fairly — underpins a lot of her work. As a longtime YouTuber, she’s all too familiar with the endless and dishonest trashings of other people’s content that dominate the site. Contra writes and structures her videos in a very careful, deliberate way designed to fortify them against manipulative and bad-faith responses: “I’m not uploading stuff that I haven’t carefully controlled how each phrase is woven, which makes them hard to misinterpret,” she says. Background music makes it harder to chop up her videos in misleading or undermining ways, too, she explained, as does her constant humorous self-deprecation. All these tactics help her deploy funny, forceful, irony-laden arguments against lines of thinking that many left-of-center vloggers and commentators would consider not even worth debating, perhaps the best example being her video “Why Wh!te N@tionali$m Is Wrong.”
In that video and others, Contra explains what she means clearly and in plain language that can’t be easily caricatured. It’s at the core of what she does — even on very difficult, personal issues. The best example is probably her videos about gender identity, particularly “I Am Genderqueer (and What the #@%! That Means)” (as the title suggests, that video marked her coming out as genderqueer — she has since come out as a trans woman).
[keep reading]
A conversation with Australian scholar Helen Young.
“I do believe that medieval history can be saved. The view that white supremacists have of the Middle Ages is monocultural, mono-racial, and mono-religious; that simply doesn’t reflect reality. That limited view was constructed in the first place, and it can be dismantled.”
This thread is so good.
Adrian knows his shit.
oh hey! it got tumblrized! Really glad you liked it.
These 17 Women Changed The Face Of Physics
Click through to read the rest.
For New Scientist.
Order my new book here: https://goo.gl/6sypYT