Origami Around
Andulka
TVSTRANGERTHINGS
pixel skylines
Stranger Things
Monterey Bay Aquarium
Cosimo Galluzzi
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸
noise dept.
art blog(derogatory)
No title available
Three Goblin Art
taylor price
Misplaced Lens Cap
Show & Tell
One Nice Bug Per Day
No title available
blake kathryn
hello vonnie
Claire Keane
seen from South Africa
seen from Austria
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from Greece
seen from Türkiye
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Brazil
seen from United States
seen from Canada
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Canada
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
@beeeater
Okay, if you are tired then you won't be able to read. There I say it. No one else want to say it. It is strange. If you are tired, if you cannot finish a book that's a given. That's why you need to read...at work. You need to steal your reading time from your employers.
tumblr users will brand the entire genre of rap as too misogynistic and then go back to writing fanfiction of sanji from one piece
I think perhaps the only way in which queer people have achieved true parity with straight people is that queer romantasy is just as bad.
I'm experimenting with comic-making.
more marxists should be questioning science tbh and not pseudoscience, not even exclusively capitalist science, just science in general. "scientific" is not a synonym for good or correct. the no-true-scientist idea that any science that produces incorrect ideas or is used for oppressive means is somehow bastardized and corrupted and could clearly only come from non-scientists or failed ones is also part of the issue. and all of this applies to academia in general as well of course. look into the resource extraction networks that allowed for these developments, the colonial knowledge-production that was intrinsically tied to colonization itself, the processes that happen alongside scientific research (both allowing it and being allowed by it), and the material purposes that those sciences serve in the present before you make any argument where scientists (yes, as a whole, as in as a profession and a class) are working for the greater good or bravely fighting against budget cuts by a government that is antiscience because that is not the point not even a little bit. and neither is it really relevant to talk about the feelings, opinions, and positions of individual scientists as good or bad or to psychoanalyze why they do what they do. they might be fully convinced that they are working for good, they might be passionate about their topic, they might even have intradisciplinary discussions about how to avoid racism and sexism and colonialism in their work, it doesn't matter, because what matters is their professional interests, the contexts in which their work is developed and gets deployed, and the origin of the resources, financial and otherwise, that allow for their existence
I agree with your main point. Marxists shouldn't treat science or academia as somehow outside capitalist social relations. The question is never just whether knowledge is “true”, but what social relations organize its production, what labor and extraction sustain it, and what state and capitalist priorities shape its development and use.
That said, I would frame this less as “science in general” than as science as a historically specific social practice. Under capitalism, scientific labor is organized through universities, firms, states, militaries, grant systems, intellectual property regimes, and imperial divisions of labor. The point is not that science is uniquely corrupt, but that it is not exempt from class rule.
I would also be careful about calling scientists “a class”. In a strict Marxist sense, they are not a unified class actor so much as a differentiated professional stratum with contradictory relations to capital, the state, and the means of production. some are proletarianized wage workers, some occupy managerial or disciplinary roles, and some are directly integrated into accumulation or imperial administration. So it makes more sense to focus less on “scientists as a class”, but instead on the class character of the institutions that organize scientific labor.
Lastly, I wouldn't dismiss internal struggle within science as irrelevant. It's true that good intentions do not undo structural determination, but institutions are still sites of contradiction. Conflicts over method, categorization, funding, ethics, access, and whose knowledge counts are all part of how these institutions reproduce themselves, and also part of how they can be contested.
I basically agree with your critique. Science under capitalism is socially organized, contradictory, and shaped by class power. The point isn't to treat science as a single, undifferentiated enemy (which I don't think you're doing), but to analyze it materially, as a contradictory field that produces real knowledge within specific relations of domination and struggle.
good points, especially about scientists not being a class; i would argue however that all science, and all scientists, in the imperial core are integrated into "accumulation or imperial administration" (something the book the colonial machine does get into). I would also not make a distinction between a "science as a historically specific social practice" and "science in general" - the concept of scientific research, its subdivisions, its actors, etc. is a historically specific social practice in itself, that would not be science if it had developed otherwise. regarding internal struggle within science, i think the shape that it takes is relevant; i had mostly in mind the kind of conference that aims to create a "non-colonial anthropology" or an "ethical psychiatry", but i also believe it is possible for scientists to organize along socialist or anti-imperialist lines
I need to start book posting more. I think I'm going to try to reblog or post at least one post for each book I read during my summer reading burst. starting now w the fourth on the calculation of volume but very shortly bc I already returned that one to the library...
I think this is the first one in this series where the prose truly compelled me to believe that time was muddled bc I was not registering how many days had passed until the end of the book. Generally I think this book series is approachable to read but sometimes reliant on cliches but the introduction of many more characters made me more feel that these were a trait of Tara's and her narrative voice and from the meta text of her writing the story as notes versus the authorial voice.
Had been thinking about this post (which is a fake excerpt from an imaginary narrative written to mock 'tumblr prose'), and how most "no actually this is good" comments are highlighting how the construction of individual sentences is interesting, how some of the language is evocative, how it Goes Hard. Because that post is written badly in a very thoughtful manner that focuses on core structural issues rather than going for low hanging fruit of poor technical proficiency with the written word, it is not bad in the most "obvious" of ways. So I think this is a legit learning opportunity, but also I don't want to dunk on anyone so instead I will just preach to the choir of My Followers.
But yeah like to be more constructive than just going "lol tumblr prose bad", really the issue in Large part that characterizes "tumblr prose" (which to be clear I don't think is a discrete thing and at most is a combination of several writing tendencies influenced by the medium of Online) comes down to the lack of real contrast in Any aspect of narrative construction, and an obsession with being quotable and constantly being at 100% of Going Hard (which go hand in hand).
In that post, the character voice is indistinct from that of the narration, and the characters quote one-liners that look Meaningful as excerpts and are borderline nonsensical as dialogue. There is no more than the faintest, most generic hints of characterization; these people exist as vague concepts to say deep words for the reader. The sentence length has little variation from its staccato beat, and so it is awkward to read and fails to complement the action or accomplish anything with the pacing (save for the slight slowdown when the torturer feels all that damp animal electricity). The timing is awkward and exaggeratedly dramatic. The description is a flowery kind of tryhard visceral and seems avoidant of describing anything too directly ("something dark and arterial" where there's nothing being accomplished by conveying uncertainty about what is currently gushing out of the injured character and the simple use of "blood splashed across the stones" would actually be 10x more effective), in a way that does disservice to what is supposed to be a torture scene, and leaves it weightless and ungrounded. In fairness to the people saying "this is good", that is MUCH easier to say when reading this fake excerpt as the standalone piece it actually is, but this kind of writing Cannot function in an actual narrative and is not what an excerpt from well constructed narrative fiction is going to look like basically ever.
It reflects a lot of very typical amateur writing issues that just about everyone has to grow out of (the minimal diversity in sentence length, simulated non-attention to scene pacing and timing), and issues common to fanfiction-influenced writing on social media (allergy to paragraph lengths of more than two sentences, little to no description of the characters or setting because, in fanfiction, the reader already knows their physical characteristics and mannerisms and it doesn't need to be lingered upon, Unlike In Original Fiction). But this particularly hits on an issue I think is semi-unique to narrative writing in the social media milieu, which is a focus on being quotable. This may not even be a conscious impulse at all But It's There. This kinda apparent terror of any moment not being as beautiful and hard hitting as possible (or for comedy, any moment not being A Joke). Everything "Goes Hard", so nothing actually does. A lot of "tumblr prose" type writing is less a narrative, more a string of quotes loosely assembled into narrative that vaguely gestures at things like Plot and Character. It substitutes depth for Suggestions of depth by utilizing stock symbolism without building it into the narrative, and by gesturing at weighty contexts without actually engaging with them. There can be little contrast or effective use of tone, pace, description when your story is a series of Hard Hitting Quotes.
I'm reading Watership Down right now and I think it's a great novel overall and can work as an example of how important it is to utilize contrast in your writing.
This segment is the lengthy first description of the titular down, which the rabbits are now encountering for the first time:
Adams is slowing the pace here to introduce us to the setting of the next segment of the book. The average sentence length is very long and keeps us lingering in the sensory detail, while still varied and thus smoothly readable. This new place is introduced by simultaneously conveying its physical description in vivid detail and conveying its feeling and character, and getting the most out of every described feature to do so. The thorn trees are "wind stunted". The air is "scented". The language takes on a very flowery character and heavily utilizes simile and metaphor. Woodland is "tumultuous with evening", sunlight filters through grass "like a wind" to the small creatures below, in contrast to laying "like a gold rind" on the hill when seen from a distance. This grandiose description is heavily functional and conveys both exhaustive physical detail and a feeling that this place is beautiful, awe inspiring to something like a rabbit, and full of life, though not without quiet hints of danger. It hits because Not Everything In The Book Is Described This Way. It means something that we're lingering like this and stopping to get a sense of this place on every possible level, and moving away from more direct, simple prose to convey the feeling of the place in depth.
This segment describes the rabbit Bigwig being found caught in a snare:
The prose here here has the opposite approach of the first excerpt. The language is concise, direct, and brutal. It only veers slightly away from the literal to describe Bigwig's voice as 'bubbling out' from his mouth, both conveying that the saliva and blood in his mouth is literally bubbling as he speaks, and implying the unsettling way his voice sounds as he's being strangled. The sentences are much shorter on the whole, as fit for the pacing of a tense and rapidly changing scene, and the pace closely complements the action - "There was a pause" not only conveys That There Was A Pause but interrupts the rhythm of this segment; the moment of uneasy stillness is echoed in the act of reading itself.
The scene this is excerpted from is extremely effective and does in fact Go Hard, it's well constructed in of itself but its effectiveness mostly lies in its place in the narrative. It's the culmination of a long, tense buildup as the reader becomes more aware that something is deeply Wrong about the place the rabbits are in, and the payoff is effective in being blunt and visceral, which hits because Not Everything In The Book Is Described This Way. Nothing about these excerpts are particularly quotable because that is actually not what good narrative writing is about.
i get knocked up
but i abort again
i'll never carry it to term
PLEASE use contraceptives if you don't intend to bear children
i'm getting knocked up again Tonight
Stop killing babies.
which part of my bio are you struggling with? it's okay, take your time
holy fuck this was such a classic i forgot about this lmaooo
Del Monte Foods shuttered its Modesto and Hughson cannery plants in April.
we're for real gonna be telling stories about this man for centuries
yall I feel like I'm floating right now
“Despite what Knausgaard says about the novel’s fixation on time, On the Calculation of Volume is very much about volume: about the sounds,
In 2024, I was the lead researcher for a report exposing new information about the Secretary of Defense Executive Fellows (SDEF) program, which sent US military officers to work at for-profit military contractors for a year and then bring back "recommendations" for policy reform that just so happened to benefit their corporate sponsors. You can read a summary of the report here.
I am happy to announce that this program is no more. I recently discovered a non-public Pentagon memo announcing the cancellation of the SDEF program. The Pentagon press office declined my request to authenticate the memo, but I was able to independently verify that it is real. SDEF will be closing its doors this summer.
The bad news? It's being replaced by programs that are even worse for military-industrial corruption— "BOND" and "Detachment 201." My latest:
Hegseth killed a controversial fellows program that sent military personnel into the private sector. But then he created two new programs th
The notion that the government can be made more efficient by giving greater influence to corporate contractors is exactly backward. The companies profiting off of the military-industrial complex are not a solution to government waste and inefficiency; they are a cause of it. Government contractors spend millions each year trying to rig the rules of the game, gain privileged access to contracts, and weaken the transparency and accountability guidelines that keep them in check. With hundreds of billions of dollars in defense contracts on the line, BOND will serve as yet another avenue for big businesses to enrich themselves. There is little doubt that BOND and Detachment 201 will produce corruption even worse than that of the SDEF program, without any of the benefits. For all of its many faults, SDEF could at least plausibly serve as a skill-building opportunity for U.S. military officers; not so for BOND. And while SDEF had a small group of fellows serving as a bridge between the Pentagon and its contractors each year, BOND’s recruitment of several hundred corporate executives threatens to create a larger, longer-lasting, and more direct channel for contractors to lobby their government customers. These “Business Operators” have a strong incentive to act in their companies’ interest, regardless of how it affects national security. The purpose of government is to serve the public, and the purpose of a military contractor is to make money. The more that military contractors are allowed to influence the government, the more the government will ignore the common good and adopt a militaristic approach to the world in order to line the pockets of a few well-connected contractors. A rational foreign policy and an efficient military acquisitions process are possible only through reducing contractor influence, not enhancing it.
unironically i love this website and the people who post here because like 4% of them are even more pedantic and specialized in their knowledge bases than i am, and they are ALL HATERS. these are my people, sincerely. i support them uncritically even though all of us are REALLY annoying
uh i understand your knight kink post is engaging with the literary construct of the knight rather than the historical actually existing social role but you really failed to engage with the themes and tropes of late medieval grail literature
interesting rationale from a prospective juror in the Elon Musk Twitter stock manipulation case
