Bilingual
no music 🐔

No title available

izzy's playlists!
ojovivo
TMBGareOK. The Official They Might Be Giants tumblr
Game of Thrones Daily
Show & Tell

ellievsbear

gracie abrams

❣ Chile in a Photography ❣

Jar Jar Binks Fan Club
No title available
occasionally subtle
tumblr dot com
todays bird
No title available
hello vonnie
Noah Kahan
The Stonewall Inn
noise dept.
Not today Justin
seen from Mexico
seen from Poland

seen from Brazil

seen from United Kingdom
seen from Germany

seen from Japan

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States

seen from Colombia
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Chile

seen from Germany
seen from Tunisia

seen from Germany

seen from Russia

seen from United States

seen from Germany
seen from United States
@curious-kat
Bilingual
no music 🐔
once again doing philological textual analysis on the graduate student handbook which, much like homer, is evidently a collective oral tradition without a single author that was compiled in written form through fraught and highly unclear processes
You know, when I've remarked that a lot of the responses to my posts feel like people are just plucking out keywords they think they recognise based on the shape of them and replying to what they imagine the post says based on that, the possibility never occurred to me that this is actually how many American schools are currently teaching kids to read.
Like, my assumption this whole time has been that when folks go "I misunderstood this post that says [thing] as saying [unrelated thing] because I mistook [word] for [completely different word that happens to start with the same letter]", that was a bit. What do you mean they're teaching kids a reading method that's tailored to produce this exact error?
Three cueing. Once you learn about it, a whole lot of very frustrating online discourse with US Americans makes so much sense 😭
For decades, schools have taught children the strategies of struggling readers, using a theory about reading that cognitive scientists have
If you were taught to read with the three cueing method, and now struggle to read fluently, you can still learn to read properly!
-> Phonics For Adults <-
If you're a teenager, you can still use this resource.
Genuinely I think the great unsolved academic problem of the century is accessibility of knowledge structures.
It's been true for a long time that the academic project has accumulated more information than any person can readily comprehend the scope of, so if you want to learn something the immediate challenge is figuring out what is already known about it, and where to find it. Library science is structured around this problem, and has some interesting approaches and answers! Mostly following a sort of decision-tree model, where the organizational categories are necessarily somewhat arbitrary, the important thing is that they're clearly defined enough that you can ask a series of questions about "it is this or that?" and arrive at a location.
But the set of arbitrary categories does unavoidably influence the way knowledge is generated and interpreted, the "silo effect" of different fields of study not knowing how to talk to each other about their areas of overlap, and not necessarily even thinking to check what areas of overlap exist and who they could and should be talking to.
And hypothetically digitization provides the potential to completely change this up! You can build database structures that can be filtered by many different criteria simultaneously! You can look for certain keywords wherever they appear regardless of category!
But then you face a whole new conceptual headache, which is figuring out how to categorize things in a parallel access structure. And you quickly have to contend with the fact that different fields are often using completely different words and conceptual approaches, and how do you link these things up across the database? How do you provide relevant context for what kind of background framework is in play, for someone coming in with an unknown level of background knowledge in potentially a completely different approach?
And then - this is where I get unclear on the historical timeline. For some reason, from the early digitization grappling projects to the internet I grew up on, something happened where the internet got very full of surface-level answers, and also extremely technical answers, but there's a huge slice missing in between, which is SPECIFICALLY the college level "introduction to how this field is thought about, including slightly more than surface information but also an orientation to the framework of thought which has been built in academia so far, and which will be useful for knowing how to find and interpret more technical information on this subject." This type of thing is INFURIATINGLY difficult to find on the internet, and has been even since back when google worked. There's a handful out there of thoughtfully curated websites - usually hosted by some university where someone took the trouble to build out an explainer for their field of study - but they've always been random lucky unicorns to find. As a fallback you can try downloading some random textbooks and reading them, but I can't call that a good approach.
And then, in parallel to that, there's the search engine thing. Google early on hit a really interesting and compelling strategy for sorting webpages by their relationship to a web of knowledge - but the proxy for this was a web of links, which rapidly became Extremely gameable. For a while they were on top of managing this, somehow, I don't actually know the technical details.
There was a brief window where search expanded from just including your exact keywords, to triangulating sets of concepts related to your keywords - this was like 2015? There was a fleeting moment where a search of several meaty keywords could actually tell you what the field of study you wanted was, could point you to things slightly beyond the scope of what you'd asked for, which was so cool. And then fairly rapidly over several years this collapsed into showing you instead things that were related to vaguer, less technical versions of your keywords, and then eventually to the point where if you had more than about 3 keywords it would just start ignoring most of them.
This seems to have happened in parallel to a hard turn towards microadvertising and to google itself as an ad service. I have a suspicion that google stopped TRYING to get ahead of the gaming of their searches and instead just leaned into it, because this brought them more add revenue via content aggregators who ran their ads and also gamed their searches aggressively. Resulting in the rapid search engine sloptimization of everything.
Meanwhile database structural approaches really lagged, because search was so easy and powerful through google for a while, that straight keyword searching felt clunky and high-effort in comparison. There could have been a lot of work in this field that just... failed to materialize, as far as I can see.
Instead the data science world leaned in hard on machine learning - which could offer some interesting approaches! I think not unrelated to what 2010s google was up to actually! - but then all that got swept up in the push to natural language models. Which is INCREDIBLY frustrating, because the output you're going to get from a language model for a search query is AT BEST equivalent to asking some guy who's read approximately everything ever to summarize of the top of its head. In practice it's worse than this, because a language model does not actually have a conceptual understanding of what it's read, a fact which is only semi-compensated by the sheer volume of information it's processed - if a clear conceptual approach is strong enough in it's text sources it's statistically likely to cough that back out, but that's entirely a gamble. But even aside from that, this completely fails as an indexing strategy because it can't send you anywhere! It can't tell you where it got anything! It's a total dead end on the project of organizing and accessing the body of knowledge which exists!
So we're back at a square where the options for sorting and accessing digitized knowledge at large are not really better than they were in 2002. And there's an absolute mire of paywall inaccessibility tied around basically everything that has enough source reputability to separate it from the absolutely unfathomable quantities of bullshit that's been created in the SEO arms race. And the academic field that seems like it SHOULD have been working on this project, the whole time, has been.... genuinely I don't FUCKING know why and how they lost the plot so completely. And the other academic field that previously approached the problem has been underfunded into obscurity because "computers made them irrelevant".
The soft eyes! The forward facing ears! The question mark tail! Not to mention the poise and control! This little dude is having a blast and is SO good at it!!
black spotted tabby
Walter Anderson - Two Cats, circa 1940.
Anastasia Trusova:
Riumar Dunes / Aurora over the Lake /
Birch forest / White Cliffs of Dover /
Geese in Lavender / Sun Bunny /
Apple trees in bloom 2025 / Teeth knocking /
Thick Cover / Sakura blossom 2024
My second yarn and my first plied yarn! I blame all irregularities on Lil's participation.
One hot and cool writing tip that I wish more people knew is... you don't have to write out people's accents phonetically. You just don't. You are not Dickens. You are (hopefully) not Rowling. There are so many other ways you can make someone's speech feel authentic to their background, or just make it clear that they're speaking in a certain accent, not limited to:
literally just saying 'he spoke with a Welsh accent'; sure, it's a bit blunt, but it gets the job done in a pinch. "He's completely drunk," he said, his southern drawl lingering on the final syllable as if to highlight the extent of the offence. Y'know, something of that ilk, but not as shit.
learning the specific vocabulary and syntax that someone with that accent might use. Sticking with the Welsh theme, because it's objectively the best accent*, there's a bunch of things that differentiate a colloquial South Walean accent, outside of our famed tendency to elongate a vowel to the point of death. The way we use prepositions (where to by is he?), the vocabulary borrowed from Welsh - saying that someone daft is twp, or something small is dwty - can easily signpost our speech as being from that specific area, without needing to type something like "'e's absolutely 'angin', man, pissed as a faaht 'e is!" Something less jarring, such as "He's absolutely hanging, he is." is just as clear. A character who says "Do you want a cuppa?" is coded or located very differently to one who says "You'll have a cup of tea, so you will."
ditto if there are specific ways that someone from a certain area might refer to a well-known concept. Regional words for mother and father, for example, or words that are class-specific; your character who calls his parents 'mater and pater' is likely inhabiting a different socioeconomic strata than your character who calls them 'mam and dad'. See if there's a colloquial way of saying 'yes' and 'no'; a lot can be signposted if your character says 'nah' rather than 'no', or 'aye' rather than 'yes'. A character saying 'couch' is inherently coded differently to one who says 'sofa'.
The reasons that writing accents phonetically is Generally Ill-Advised, In My Opinion are as follows:
quite simply, you're probably not being as clear in conveying the sounds of the accent as you think you are. Taking JK Rowling's work as the best possible example of this, her attempts at writing a Cockney accent phonetically come across like someone is chewing a mouthful of cheese curds and struggling to contain them. There's no consistency, no proper understanding of how to transcribe syllables into writing in a way that coherently conveys the accent she's trying to portray. I mean this so seriously, but what the flying fuck is: 'Well, 'e 'ad these 'ead pains and 'e was def'nitley nervous. Depressed maybe.' It's a crime, is what it is.
it's just plain hard to read. Trying to wade through sentences full of apostrophes and elision, parsing what's actually being said, gets tiresome. It asks the reader to do work that you're actively making harder for them. And that's not always a bad thing! Making readers Put Some Fucking Effort In can be very fruitful! But do you really want them to be struggling to understand every single thing that your Character B is saying for 350 pages?
which leads me onto the last point, and the most important in my mind: writing out accents like this always, always affects accents that are already in some way Othered. They're either racialised or working class, or associated with certain local regions that have negative stereotypes - think the deep South of the US, or the Welsh Valleys. They're never the 'default'. And this raises thorny questions about what the default is, what the standardised accent is, the accents that do and do not merit differentiation from the norm. You're relegating Character B to being hard to read because he's from, idk, Sunderland. You've decided that he isn't speaking 'properly', and therefore the reader needs to understand that other people think he's speaking weirdly. That, to me, is the principle issue. Because returning to JK Rowling (a sentence I hoped never to type), the only characters who speak like this in her work are working class, or they're from other countries. They're never from, you know, Surrey. Wonder why that is. And it's easy to be glib about it, but I do think it reifies class and regional boundaries in a way that's ultimately harmful.
This isn't to say that there's never a place for eye dialect in writing - Trainspotting, for example, wouldn't be what it is without it, and there's definitely a different conversation to be had when it's your own accent and you're making a deliberate point about identity by differentiating through eye dialect - but I think that the blanket assumption of 'oh shit, my character is from Ireland, I'd better type that out phonetically!' can actually be both damaging to your writing and to your character representation, and I think that instead doing the work to really understand the vocabulary, speech patterns and unique aspects of a language or dialect always makes a work feel more authentic and lived-in.
To wit, less of this shite:
There’s mony a slip, an’ I’m no losin’ sight o’ any o’ my suspectit pairsons, juist yet awhile. (Peter Wimsey, if you were wondering, and yes, that's supposed to be Scottish)
and more of this:
"Are we straight so?" "Aye, we're straight," said Jim. "Straight as a rush, so we are." (Jamie O'Neill, Irish, from At Swim, Two Boys)
*objective determination made via a sample size of one: me, in an elaborate hat.
Kinda wild how the concept of emotional labour changed from
"people have to hide their emotions to perform specific types of labour where their apparent emotions influence another person's. Eg. Flight attendants have to be cheerful all the time, so that passengers feel welcome and safe. This suppression and masking of emotion can cause a sense of disconnect within the individual where they dont know what their true feelings are. This is part of the Marxist idea of alienation from labour and from the self."
To
"If you ask me to care about you or listen to your problems, youre being toxic."
It's worth taking a look at how we got here.
Sociologist Arlie Hochschild coined the term in 1983, specifically describing it as emotional performance required by a worker for a job. This alienates the worker from their own feelings. The expected emotion can be care, joy, etc. but it can also be harshness or simply the expectation to not show your real emotions in the workplace.
Sociologist Arlie Hochschild also coined the term 'the second shift' in 1989. describing how in families where a man and a woman both have a job, the woman is often still expected to do all the child raising and house cleaning, meaning she is carrying a double workload.
Already in 1983 (before coining the term 'second shift' but already developing the concept), Hochschild herself connected the two ideas, writing: "In a typical nuclear family unit, it is thought that women become responsible for much of the emotional labor by default, meaning they are responsible for shaping and managing the family’s feelings." So we have the person who coined the term, immediately after coining the term, also using emotional labor to describe unpaid household work! This is part of the term since its inception!
Around 2015 the term gained a lot of popularity and began to be more broadly applied. Some things that are, according to Hochschild, NOT emotional labor include:
Doing physical chores around the house
Doing mental chores like remembering birthdays
Hochschild: "if we talk about all the unpaid labor women do in the home as “emotional labor,” we’re insinuating that any kind of labor that falls most often to a woman is “emotional.” Like chores are just labor. Writing Christmas cards is just labor."
Also not emotional labour:
Expressing genuine emotions that you feel
Doing things that make other people feel better
Hochschild emphasizes that doing things to positively impact other people's emotions isn't 'emotional labor'. Managing and suppressing your own emotions is. That's where the alienation that is central to emotional labor comes in: it's alienation from your own feelings.
It's also essential that there must be an expectation on the person to do this. Hiding your real feelings by choice isn't emotional labor. As with emotional labor in the workplace, non-caring emotions and suppression of emotions typically expected of men are included. So when a wife expects her husband to suppress his pain and not cry in front of the children, that is an example of emotional labor. So to summarize, emotional labor according to Hochschild doesn't have to always be paid labor, but it does always involve:
The management of your own emotions
Alienation from your real emotions, as a result of being forced to perform other emotions.
Pressure/expectation, there are negative consequences if you don't do the performance.
There is a system, (the workplace, genderroles, etc) shaping these expectations, putting specific expectations on categories of people.
Finally, Hochschild never said that emotional labor shouldn't exist or that it doesn't have a function. In the workplace and out of it, emotional labor can achieve important things. The nurse that uplifts the patient and the parent that comfort their child might both be hiding their real feelings and that itself is not bad. The problem is the pressure to do this labor when you dont want to, the lack of acknowledgement of this labour and óf its potential for alienation, and the division of this labour according to gendered expectations.
people who are awake before 7 and don’t seem to realize “being awake before 7” is not a universal human trait stress me out lol
I am not capable of polite & cognizant speech until a quarter coffee-pot past 11 at least, please do not try to make me Be Places or Do Things at 7-8am, I will die 😭
I'm only awake before 7 if either A: work requires it, or B: I'm up that late.
all times before 10am are imaginary.
heirloom farmer Bettinakbh in Denmark
The paw on the window
in a moment, everything can change
Melon collies
I can no longer feel the infinite sadness