Χαμάρτια

I'm Taylor. Age 27. For General Content- Check #Anti Taylor Swift For Literary Criticism Specfic Content - Check # I'm a Professional Taylor Swift Critic Minors DNI.

[crumblinggothicarchitecture]

God not another album

[1anonyymous1]

please be patient with me im from the 1900s

[crumblinggothicarchitecture]

I have to say it

The poetry in the tv show Ginny and Georgia is so aggressively bad that I had to fast forward

I cringed

[crumblinggothicarchitecture]

Working in Academia is just having one crisis after another, and then magically getting your paper completed

I am somehow both under the mountain in defeat and standing atop the mountain in victory.

Anyway- I'm a philologist now I guess

Oddly enough, my Anti Taylor Swift ramblings that I never published on her poorly constructed allusions to Casandra helped me write that paper.

(The paper is not about Swift. But it did lead me to a research rabbit hole on the illocutionary force in metaphor, which then lead me to bridging into sociohistorical semantics and the intersections of power, obligation, and speculation. )

I'm a silly person.

[websoflove-deactivated20260215]

[theweirdwideweb]

New York

[diaryofaphilosopher]

"The shift from the Afro-Caribbean zombie to the U.S. zombie is clear: in Caribbean folklore, people are scared of becoming zombies, whereas in U.S. narratives people are scared of zombies. This shift is significant because it maps the movement from the zombie as victim (Caribbean) to the zombie as an aggressive and terrifying monster who consumes human flesh (U.S.). In Haitian folklore, for instance, zombies do not physically threaten people; rather, the threat comes from the voduon practice whereby the sorcerer (master) subjugates the individual by robbing the victim of free will, language and cognition. The zombie is enslaved."

— Justin D. Edwards, "Mapping Tropical Gothic in the Americas" in Tropical Gothic in Literature and Culture.

Follow Diary of a Philosopher for more quotes!

[crumblinggothicarchitecture]

God help me, I have to figure out what to lecture to the Freshman tomorrow.

-_- Despite my love for my job- I also tired of teaching research methods. It's such a weird thing to try to teach.

[crumblinggothicarchitecture]

Ughhh I really wish you were more active here. Love your posts and your ramblings so much !!! I'm not kidding but I literally came back to tumblr for your posts !!! (Sincerely an english lit enthusiast ans ex swiftie)

Hello dear- thank you for your kind words. I do hope that you are well and thriving even in this difficult world.

I do intend to get more into writing on this blog again. I am using this space as something of practice for my academic publications, but, I also intend to use this space for publishing all of my ramblings that wouldn't get published in academic journals. LOL- no one except you guys appreciates my commentary on Taylor Swift, Hozier, Kendrick Lamar- etc.

I love talking about music. I really do.

[crumblinggothicarchitecture]

re: what the previous anon said about AAVE grammar

ig this is more of a question for the black/african american community but is there anyway to use AAVE terms and grammar respectfully by someone who's not part of the community? I'm not white. I'm not even american, I'm from asia but I wanted to know because it had been so popularised in english-speaking internet i sometimes speak like that unintentionally so I was wondering if that's okay

Hello dear friend, I would suggest maybe asking someone who is within the Black community.

I'm Irish American- so I never really use AAVE, personally. I do, however, just read a lot of linguistic papers- and am currently in a postcolonial studies program wherein I read theories from Black intellectuals often.

I do think there is a difference between Online slang and AAVE; however, I know that it does tend to become interchangeable. Certain words and phrases become popularized through mass media- it is just the happenstance of the digital age. I don't think there is anything wrong with using phrases you find to be useful to your specific expressive needs- so long as it is not used in sarcastic manner or otherwise intentioned to make fun of the phrase. I guess just use it with appreciation for the people and culture from which it comes?

It is an interesting question. I think, as globalization continues to expand, that most people are wondering about the line between cultural appreciation and cultural appropriation.

I cited Glissant in my last post, and I do think Glissant would appreciate the interconnected dialogic of multiple communities making use of each other's linguistic markers. That's what I would surmise, at least, after having read everything he's ever written. To be clear, Glissant was a black Caribbean intellectual- not American- however, his prime contribution to the philosophy of linguistics was concerned with hybridization and cultural exchange. He, ultimately, argued that language is a medium of expression which will always reflect the interconnected nature of humanity. His position was such- because he was a Martinican writer. Martinique- of course- being a past colony of France continues to use French in their everyday lives. In fact, most people of Martinique speak only French- and the French dialect spoken there is creolized. Meaning that the French language there has been modified by the cultural situation and the cosmological structure of the people who use the language. Creole and French now have different vernaculars- within similar syntactical structures. It's really very fascinating to me- how we share and adapt language using it also to construct a cultural reality.

He argues in favor of creolization (or hybridity) because he argues that identity and language is constructed through systems of relation- not isolation. My argument would be inline with this logic. I think that people are innately interconnected- we build meaning, language, thought through relation to others. What is language if not a means to connect with each other? That includes relation to other cultures. So, I don't think it's wrong to say things like "it be like that" with the use of the Habitual "be" or "he funny" as an example of the omitted "be"

Words like "finna" or "lit" or "woke" have all long histories of embedded meaning in AAVE, which is also now part of youth culture and broader internet slang. I think this is just a natural result of our most human impulses- to share and feel a kinship to one another.

If I am wrong- I would welcome a correction. What do you think about the matter?

Also- I don't want to make it seem like Glissant believes all language is interchangeable. That is not the case, but that he does think difference is more constructive when viewed through a lens of solidarity and inter community dialogue. He coined "Tout Monde" meaning- all world, as an explanatory device for his theory that we all construct our reality in relation to each other. Through fluidity and not separation.

[onetwofeb]

“Socrates said, “The misuse of language induces evil in the soul.” He wasn’t talking about grammar. To misuse language is to use it the way politicians and advertisers do, for profit, without taking responsibility for what the words mean. Language used as a means to get power or make money goes wrong: it lies. Language used as an end in itself, to sing a poem or tell a story, goes right, goes towards the truth. A writer is a person who cares what words mean, what they say, how they say it. Writers know words are their way towards truth and freedom, and so they use them with care, with thought, with fear, with delight. By using words well they strengthen their souls. Story-tellers and poets spend their lives learning that skill and art of using words well. And their words make the souls of their readers stronger, brighter, deeper.”

Ursula K. Le Guin

[reader-twisted]

“It was an act of self-preservation — however misguided it was”.

[tirednolongerinterestedgoaway-d]

[marvelsmostwanted]

There are people – some in my own Party – who think that if you just give Donald Trump everything he wants, he’ll make an exception and spare you some of the harm. I’ll ignore the moral abdication of that position for just a second to say — almost none of those people have the experience with this President that I do. I once swallowed my pride to offer him what he values most — public praise on the Sunday news shows — in return for ventilators and N95 masks during the worst of the pandemic. We made a deal. And it turns out his promises were as broken as the BIPAP machines he sent us instead of ventilators. Going along to get along does not work – just ask the Trump-fearing red state Governors who are dealing with the same cuts that we are. I won’t be fooled twice.

I’ve been reflecting, these past four weeks, on two important parts of my life: my work helping to build the Illinois Holocaust Museum and the two times I’ve had the privilege of reciting the oath of office for Illinois Governor.

As some of you know, Skokie, Illinois once had one of the largest populations of Holocaust survivors anywhere in the world. In 1978, Nazis decided they wanted to march there.

The leaders of that march knew that the images of Swastika clad young men goose stepping down a peaceful suburban street would terrorize the local Jewish population – so many of whom had never recovered from their time in German concentration camps.

The prospect of that march sparked a legal fight that went all the way to the Supreme Court. It was a Jewish lawyer from the ACLU who argued the case for the Nazis – contending that even the most hateful of speech was protected under the first amendment.

As an American and a Jew, I find it difficult to resolve my feelings around that Supreme Court case – but I am grateful that the prospect of Nazis marching in their streets spurred the survivors and other Skokie residents to act. They joined together to form the Holocaust Memorial Foundation and built the first Illinois Holocaust Museum in a storefront in 1981 – a small but important forerunner to the one I helped build thirty years later.

I do not invoke the specter of Nazis lightly. But I know the history intimately — and have spent more time than probably anyone in this room with people who survived the Holocaust. Here’s what I’ve learned – the root that tears apart your house’s foundation begins as a seed – a seed of distrust and hate and blame.

The seed that grew into a dictatorship in Europe a lifetime ago didn’t arrive overnight. It started with everyday Germans mad about inflation and looking for someone to blame.

I’m watching with a foreboding dread what is happening in our country right now. A president who watches a plane go down in the Potomac – and suggests — without facts or findings — that a diversity hire is responsible for the crash. Or the Missouri Attorney General who just sued Starbucks – arguing that consumers pay higher prices for their coffee because the baristas are too “female” and “nonwhite.” The authoritarian playbook is laid bare here: They point to a group of people who don’t look like you and tell you to blame them for your problems.

I just have one question: What comes next? After we’ve discriminated against, deported or disparaged all the immigrants and the gay and lesbian and transgender people, the developmentally disabled, the women and the minorities – once we’ve ostracized our neighbors and betrayed our friends – After that, when the problems we started with are still there staring us in the face – what comes next.

All the atrocities of human history lurk in the answer to that question. And if we don’t want to repeat history – then for God’s sake in this moment we better be strong enough to learn from it.

I swore the following oath on Abraham Lincoln’s Bible: “I do solemnly swear that I will support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the state of Illinois, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of Governor .... according to the best of my ability.

My oath is to the Constitution of our state and of our country. We don’t have kings in America – and I don’t intend to bend the knee to one. I am not speaking up in service to my ambitions — but in deference to my obligations.

If you think I’m overreacting and sounding the alarm too soon, consider this:

It took the Nazis one month, three weeks, two days, eight hours and 40 minutes to dismantle a constitutional republic. All I’m saying is when the five-alarm fire starts to burn, every good person better be ready to man a post with a bucket of water if you want to stop it from raging out of control.

Those Illinois Nazis did end up holding their march in 1978 – just not in Skokie. After all the blowback from the case, they decided to march in Chicago instead. Only twenty of them showed up. But 2000 people came to counter protest. The Chicago Tribune reported that day that the “rally sputtered to an unspectacular end after ten minutes.” It was Illinoisans who smothered those embers before they could burn into a flame.

Tyranny requires your fear and your silence and your compliance. Democracy requires your courage. So gather your justice and humanity, Illinois, and do not let the “tragic spirit of despair” overcome us when our country needs us the most.

Sources:

• NBC Chicago & J.B. Pritzker, Democratic governor of Illinois, State of the State address 2025: Watch speech here | Full text

• Betches News on Instagram (screencaps)

[crumblinggothicarchitecture]

We miss you sm!!! I feel all my fav blogs are going mia !!!! I hope you're doing fine x

My dear friend- your kindness does not go unnoticed.

I am not exactly MIA- I just am more than a little bit overwhelmed by Graduate School. Any advice on writing a good PhD application? lol (help).

I hope that you are well and thriving. It is a difficult time in the world. I worry for us all.

I am, at present, spending most of my time reading. I have so much to say and so much passion for my work- but I find myself unable to fully articulate what it is that I am trying to show. So- I've been focusing on studying more :)

Anyway- I am not gone. I also still have much to say about Taylor Swift, and am still working out how to intelligently articulate it. Because, I actually do think her work is damaging to the social fabric. Swift, as I see it, is indicative of a consumeristic, hyper-individualistic world in which it is every man for themselves. I don't know about you- but that is not a world in which I want to live. I love community- and building stronger intercultural ties.

I also see a troubling thread of authoritarianism in Swift's work- and I want to further explore that.

Don't not worry- I am not gone. But, I am trying to figure out what I am doing with my life next year. I think I am going to go for my PhD- if only to prove that I can do it lol.

[crumblinggothicarchitecture]

AAVE has its own grammar (which Kendrick DOES follow, since he's a native speaker of it). It's a form of English with its own rules that often get misused outside of the original Black American communities. Just look at how many White people misuse the habitual "be." It's lowkey really offensive for people like the prev anon to insinuate that rappers like Kendrick aren't following grammatical rules, just because they're following DIFFERENT grammatical rules from a distinctly Black version of English.

Exactly my friend. That is the point I was making in some of my previous points about Lamar's writing style. It comes down to the difference between prescriptive grammar and descriptive grammar. I think people are too quick to dismiss writing simply because it does not follow the Euro-centric upper class prescriptive grammar rules. And- I do need to include all those modifiers. Grammar rules that are typically taught in k-12 schools all across the USA use a grammar rule book that was initially built on three guiding principles for prescriptivism 1) imposition of Latin linguistic structures superimposed on English 2) Nationalistic standardization meant to be a determinable social marker between socioeconomic classes 3) Limiting social mobility during the Industrial Revolution. All of these core tenets of "proper grammar" stem from an authoritarian romanticization of "purity" in language- one that was often used to hurt or push down people of color, diaspora, immigrant populations- or anyone otherwise considered undesirable to the upper classes of the USA. Here (if I were writing a proper essay) I would cite Foucault's linguistic theory on the "Will to Truth" and Glissant's theory of decolonial perspective advocating for linguistic resistance.

In 1970 Foucault argued that discourse is governed by systems of exclusion- as such people determine what is considered "true" and who has the authority to speak on which subject. (The entire higher education system is very much indicative of this- but I digress). The concept "will to truth" here is the argument the society establishes a regime for determining what constitutes legitimate knowledge. In the USA educational system, prescriptive grammar enforcement has historically functioned as a disciplinary tool- focusing on what counts as "true" or "correct" use of language. Rules like avoiding the double negative, creates a regime of truth- by marginalizing certain dialects and privileging few. Thus creating the hierarchy of linguistic construction of knowledge and power.

To use my own dialect as an example here, like saying: I ain't got no money! would be relegated as the language of the poor hillbilly white stereotype- and used against me often enough. I am not kidding- people in academia actually have been dismissive of my ideas because I sound like a southern small-town hick. The professor who taught me French was particularly rude about my accent- but alas, prescriptivism is not only a problem of English alone. Other language- cultures, etc have their own issues. To them, I am uneducated due to my dialect. (I use my dialect in everything I write due to this- I have a problem with authority like that). This same phenomenon is used to dismiss the ideas of anyone using a dialect that falls outside the constructed hierarchy which, honestly, privileges upper-class white people, who do their best to sound European, over everyone else.

Not only is Kendrick Lamar a brilliant writer in the AAVE dialect- he is also taking a stand against three centuries worth of linguistic suppression of his community. He operates with a set of grammatical systems that is just as complex as the prescriptive "standard" English system.

I think this critique of power, and institutional arraignment, is important to talk about whenever I ramble on about grammar- because it is endemic. The problem of prescptivism is a spectre which will haunt us all until "Free Speech" actually means FREE. I agree with Foucault on this subject, as to Foucault, discourse is shaped through exclusion- certain ways of speaking or writing are delegitimized, and the social institutions like schools become the main gatekeepers of language.

However, I think I agree more with Glissant- who built off of Foucauldian discourse. In the 1990's Glissant wrote about the poetics of relation, in which he discusses the nature of the relationship because language, discourse, and the construction of power. This type of linguistic suppression is what Glissant calls "linguistic imperialism" as process through which dominant social forces will suppress the natural evolution of language by branding some dialects as incorrect. Differently from Foucault, Glissant thinks that the counterforce to prescriptivism is Creolizaiton, opacity, and hybridity. Instead of rigid grammar rules- Glissant supports a linguistic fluidity. I think this is similar to what Lamar accomplishes in his work- if you notice he takes a lot of thematic points, refers from American culture or history, and adapts them through AAVE to more acutely match his intention with the work. In many ways Lamar's work is a actionable text of Glissant's linguistic theory, in that Lamar's work challenges cultural and social heirachies thought his complex engagement of identity, American history, and thematic deconstruction of power structures. Lamar's code-switching between AAVE and "standard" English is another way through which his mirrors Glissant's rejection of linguistic authoritarianism. Meaning, Lamar's work legitimizes multiple modes of expression. Glissant's insistence on linguistic fluidity dismisses the impose hierarchy of prescriptivism altogether- which is why I particularly enjoyed his theoretical framework. Because, Glissant, completely reframes language as a medium which is naturally dynamic, intercultural and meant for the free exchange of ideas- his theory offers a way out of prescriptivism and into intercultural dialogue.

As you may have noticed, I am a English teacher (as if I don't talk about that enough already lol), and, as part of the work I want to do on this planet before my time is done here, I want to break down some of those stigma's around the idea of "improper" grammar. In my classroom, I let people write in whatever dialect, in whatever language, they know.

Language is power- that is what I know. I know, too, that people construct community through linguistic cultural ties- meaning that the power is in a person's ability to communicate freely within their own grammatical expression.

I am here not to reenforce the "norm" but to live and let live- because there is so much more beauty, and depth in the free flowing waters of linguistic diversity than there will ever be in the stagnant, shallow pool that is prescriptive grammar rules.

I would love to keep talking about this! I want to show you exactly what I mean through using some actual examples- and maybe I will have the chance to sit down and write that ramble.

Anyway, thanks for the ask. Good night.

[bimboficationblues]

Theodor Adorno, Minima Moralia:

Fascism was the absolute sensation: in a statement at the time of the first pogroms, Goebbels boasted that at least the National Socialists were not boring. In the Third Reich the abstract horror of news and rumour was enjoyed as the only stimulus sufficient to incite a momentary glow in the weakened sensorium of the masses. Without the almost irresistible force of the craving for headlines, in which the strangled heart convulsively sought a primeval world, the unspeakable could not have been endured by the spectators or even by the perpetrators. In the course of the war, even news of calamity was finally given full publicity in Germany, and the slow military collapse was not hushed up. Concepts like sadism and masochism no longer suffice. In the mass-society of technical dissemination they are mediated by sensationalism, by comet-like, remote, ultimate newness. It overwhelms a public writhing under shock and oblivious of who has suffered the outrage, itself or others. Compared to its stimulus-value, the content of the shock becomes really irrelevant, as it was ideally in its invocation by poets; it is even possible that the horror savoured by Poe and Baudelaire, when realized by dictators, loses its quality as sensation, burns out. The violent rescuing of all qualities in the new was devoid of quality. Everything can, as the new, divested of itself, become pleasure...