J_hzd

Josep, 30 anys, traductor i filòleg. Tinc tres no-hit. Amant dels videojocs i dels idiomes.

[nerdy-as-heck]

I saw this and felt like it should be shared here too

[rubaedo]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimes

[mirthalegrandd]

The widespread belief that Argentina represents Israel and Spain represents Palestine is wrong and does not reflect reality.

Spain, as a whole, does not support Palestine. This support does not exist at the team level; rather, it comes more from the individual positions of certain players (such as Lamine Yamal and Borja Iglesias).

The majority of Spanish supporters are not left-wing either. On the contrary, racist circles in Spain can use the national team as a tool against players of immigrant backgrounds. Muslim and immigrant-origin footballers in particular are frequently targeted. This reality is often overlooked because the country's prime minister has shown solidarity with Palestine.

During the tournament, racist circles in Spain repeatedly targeted Lamine Yamal through social media posts and public statements.

The perception of Spain as an extremely left-wing country among the global public is largely influenced by the strong Palestine solidarity movements and left-wing communities in regions such as Euskal Herria, Catalonia, Galicia, and Andalusia. However, a significant portion of the pro-Palestinian population in these regions does not support the Spanish National Team; they advocate for their own national identities and national teams.

Argentina, too, does not support Israel institutionally or at the national team level.

The country's far-right president, Javier Milei, is an open supporter of Israel. zionist circles use this fact to create the impression that there is some deep-rooted and societal alliance between Argentina and Israel.

In reality, there is no strong public support in Argentina for Israel's attacks on Gaza. On the contrary, massive demonstrations in solidarity with Palestine have taken place across the country.

Lionel Messi is not an open supporter of Israel either. When this is pointed out, people usually ask, “So does he support Palestine?” No. Messi is not one of the figures who has publicly taken a side on this issue. Like thousands of other footballers, he prefers not to share his political views publicly.

The claim that Argentine society is largely racist, as well as the claim that the vast majority of Argentinians support Israel, are both generalizations produced on social media. These are narratives that far-right groups and zionist circles would like to spread. We should not fall into this trap.

[coralsdemar]

q fort tio q estem fent ara, comparant quin pais es pitjor?? q hi hagi gent que esta comparant el conflicte d’israel i palestina amb argentina i espanya em sembla una barbaritat. es a dir, fins a q punt em arribat??la gent es tonta del cul i racista i no sap q mes inverntar-se

[squishyskeleton]

Blasphemous is awesome cause you'll walk into a room and see a dude who's like 10 feet tall and waist deep in ash and his eyes are mouths and he's gnawing his fingers with the eye mouths and eating chunks of his own forearm with his normal mouth and he'll be like "My name is Eugènio. I stole an apple because I was starving to death and now I have to eat myself forever, please take some of my flesh and bury it next to the Holy Tree of Roses and Thorns so that it will grow into a rosebud that will finally sate my endless hunger" and it's like okay yeah sure why not I was going that way anyway so I can get some incense oil for the lady who's made of bees

[manu-script]

como mi gato piensa que voy a reaccionar cuando me trae un ratón saltarin vivo a la una de la mañana

[beau-rebloga-coisas]

Humanos são tão mas tão ingratos. Eu dou meu sangue e minha alma pra pegar um rato e trazer ele VIVO pra eles aprenderem a caçar e não passarem fome e não recebo nem sequer um obrigado, é sempre "mas que caralho é esse" "que nojo" "eu não como rato". É por isso que eu vomito nos seus tapetes e mordo você.

[manu-script]

desde cuándo mi gato tiene tumblr

[ghiacomo]

desde cuando tu gato es brasileño

[manu-script]

eso ya lo sabía le sentía esa vibra

[egregore-engine]

people will see a structural problem and go "is anybody going to attribute to this a surface-level issue that is a symptom and not the cause" without waiting for an answer

[communistkenobi]

how should students using ai be handled by professors?

Why do students need to be “handled” at all? If they hand in a shit assignment they get a shit grade. If they hand in a high quality assignment they get a good one. AI use is impossible to prove unless students literally leave “ChatGPT please write my essay for me” in their introduction, in which case the assignment will not be very good. 

AI is not a wizard tool that magically outputs A+ assignments, unless we’re talking about trivial activities like 2 sentence personal reflections worth 1% of your grade (making it a non-issue). It takes significant involvement with the material you input into the AI, and a high degree of skill for writing the many iterations of AI prompts necessary to get a high quality, structured, argumentative essay output, at which point it is 1) literally impossible to tell and 2) means the student has sufficiently engaged with the material needed for the assignment, just through a different mechanism. If there are factual errors outputted by the AI (which is very common) that end up in the assignment, you catch those during grading and deduct marks appropriately. If students repeatedly make large volumes of factual errors in their assignments (which is also not proof of AI usage - undergrads get things wrong all the time), then you flag it and talk to the student to see how you can help them retain the material better. You’re in search of a solution with no problem

[metalgearmachine]

Bona nit i Putaspanya

[communistkenobi]

great reasons for accusing students of using AI:

you're racist and think there's no way racialized students could write an essay this good

you need to decrease your class average because it's the end of the semester and you haven't met your target average

one of your TAs gave out too many As and you don't want to regrade anything

you haven't redesigned your course in years and students have gotten advice on how to write their essay from past students

you're pissed off at a student with disability accommodations for making you do extra work

you want to feel powerful

you got into a fight with your wife

you want to bond with other professors over how lazy kids are these days and swap juicy stories about students crying in your office

you want social media clout

[cuppydogshane]

all the rights that come with marriage you should be able to have without marriage btw. you should be able to designate a person who can visit you in the hospital regardless of your relationship to that person.

[communistkenobi]

From the department of “man I wish I was making this up”, I just learned my department chair dislikes me bc she thinks I used AI to write my MA thesis but can’t prove it. It’s because of my “needlessly complex” sentences, apparently.

Said draft required knowledge of three languages and access to sources that haven’t been digitized. Didn’t stop her from berating me at my defense and telling me that “you think you’re funny and clever, but you’re not,” as well as calling me several charming things.

Same chair is under investigation for multiple conduct violations and potential financial fraud :)

its WILDDDDDD like so many professors are tyrants who think their tenure makes them little god kings. Most of the students I've seen get punished are ones with "over-complicated writing styles" and are almost universally not white lol. it's so blatantly racist. I've had students come to me terrified of being accused of using AI, and it's hard to even give them advice on what things to avoid in their writing to reduce that possibility, because profs and TAs love hallucinating AI-isms in essays and/or just deciding students they dislike are using AI. Accusing students with high grades of using AI is also a handy way to reduce the class average (every undergraduate class I've TA'd for has class average targets). But for sure the main concern is about helping students understand the real value of learning

[minglana]

BON DIA A TOTHOM

[communistkenobi]

I had a lot of/still have some vestigial arrogance about quantitative methods over qualitative ones, probably in a combination of scientific misogyny + STEMlord superiority. But doing regression analysis and quant-heavy data analysis makes me realise more and more that you can justify basically any claim with numbers, and that you can construct your research in such a way as to output the numbers you want. which does not mean that all data are made up or that quantitative knowledge is all false. I think stories about scientists straight up inventing numbers or fudging experiments on purpose prove that there is a real difference between fraudulent and non-fraudulent research. but those data must always be narrativised & are always already narrativised. The act of presenting numbers itself is doing some of that narration because you’re already arguing that these numbers are worth presenting

[communistkenobi]

People in the notes are rightfully pointing out common issues with data manipulation and pre-loaded conclusions in scientific research (i.e., the academic version of asking "so, how often do you beat your wife?" and so on), but I should have clarified that I'm not really talking about that. I'm talking about completely legitimate, above-board scientific research.

For example, I've had students ask me (in good faith) how it was possible for international medical bodies to report different counts of COVID-19 cases during the early years of the pandemic. And one of the answers is that you need to first define what you mean by a "COVID-19 case." Do you include self-reported incidences? Waste water data? Geo-fenced social media posts about people complaining about their coronavirus symptoms? Federal estimates? Hospital data? How do you compare countries/territories/substate entities with mandatory reporting mechanisms vs countries/territories/substate entities that rely only on voluntary self-reported cases? And what combination of these do you use? How you construct what you mean by "case" is going to impact the outcomes you report. These different counts of COVID-19 cases can all be true simultaneously, not because numbers are made up, but because they all come out of different methodologies that can be equally valid.

And this is true across all science, not just social science. Bill Clinton said it best lol: "it depends on what your definition of the word 'is' is." This feels obvious when you look at scientific research that uses "skull measurements" as their object of analysis - the concept itself is white supremacist, regardless of how "sound" the research is. But even something as apparently self-evident as a COVID-19 case still requires a definition, and how you define your variables is necessarily going to impact how the research goes and what conclusions are drawn.

These definitions are always embedded in political & social assumptions. And again, this does not mean that science is all made up or nonsense or whatever. There is a widespread fetishism of "objective knowledge" that is itself ideological - the idea that knowledge can be divorced from all historical and political contexts, that you can scrub bias from research and simply report the facts. Valuable, well-supported, well-constructed scientific research is always embedded in these contexts. Not just as a result of researcher assumptions, but of the material context it exists in - what research resources are available, how & what research gets funded, the academy's relationship to the state & non-government bodies that both provide data and use that research to inform policy, the historical relationships universities often have with settler-colonialism and imperialism that give them access to "foreign" research subjects, etc etc etc.

So my overall point (which I didn't communicate well) is that data can always say what you want to some extent, for good and for ill. And research results (at least in my experience) tend to surprise you in ways that require explanations, which themselves can be fully justified, but again, exist within many different contexts that influence how you interpret them - and not just the results themselves, but your own surprise at your results

[communistkenobi]

something that's always stuck with me is Adorno's critique of liberal research on fascism - that liberal scientists believe you can approach fascism in good faith by simply asking Nazis what they think about the world and then writing it down. He argued that fascism is itself a bad faith ideology, and that Nazis will not usually answer the question "do you want to exterminate all minorities?" truthfully, especially not when asked by academics (who are all Marxists/Jews/etc plotting to destroy civilization). So in order to accurately capture fascist sentiment, you have to conceal your intentions and basically lie to them. And there are real moral imperatives for social scientists to do this, in the same way that journalists go undercover in white supremacist groups to report on their activities and beliefs. There's even that famous East German documentary where the directors lied to a Nazi military leader about being West German filmmakers, got him drunk, and then just filmed him saying Nazi shit lol. So like the conventions of science itself, the idea that good research is necessarily always transparent, is a political assumption that shapes how you conduct research and acquire knowledge

[parkchanwoohoo]

[handweavers]

never stops being existentially horrifying to realize that someone you're talking to thinks that there is any kind of biological basis for "race" like the amount of people who are like 'racism is bad, of course race is a real scientific thing it's just bad to treat people differently because of it' and it's like no there is no biological or scientific basis for race it's purely a social concept. a dark skinned black person and a very pale white person can share more dna than two black people or two white people like it's all made up you can't tell someone's genetic or biological makeup just by looking at them. it's all socially constructed and there are massive consequences for this construction but anyone who tries to say that there is any kind of scientific basis for race whether they're knowingly purposely racist or trying to be "progressive" is wrong and realizing that someone you're talking to in a completely benign situation dead seriously thinks that such a thing as a "white race" actually scientifically exists is so terrifying

[deep-down-in-drowsy-town]

source

[sometiktoksarevalid]