Ummmdealwithit

Hey I'm Tal, I'm 21, I use she/they/he pronouns

[natalieironside]

Me:  *makes a post about the fun brain problems I deal with every day and have been dealing with every day for the past 29 consecutive years*

Neurotypicals:  “Oh, that’s easy to fix!  Have you tried–”

Me:

[wealwaysdeliver-deactivated2022]

anyone else scared of single player minecraft. not just like oh it’s scary to mine alone. but the odd paranoia that there is another user there. that you’ll be playing alone and leave your house and there’s a person standing there. or you’re mining and there’s a user standing in the path you mined that leaves when you see it

[dressingasolinemoved-deactivate]

God I thought I was the only one

[wealwaysdeliver-deactivated2022]

i literally can never play for long before getting that genuine weird fear and exiting the game :(

[lovemenormally-deactivated20211]

are you scared of herobrine

[wealwaysdeliver-deactivated2022]

[headspace-hotel]

Honestly Minecraft is so eerie because of that loneliness. I have always seen the “story” of Minecraft as Steve’s fruitless search for other survivors, wandering the landscape, following maps and unearthing ruins and hoping to signal to someone else—anyone else—that he is here, that he’s alive.

For example, the Beacon has obvious utility for the player, but in the story, it seems much more like it would be built as a signal to others.

It is made more eerie by the fact that the creatures he encounters are misshapen mirrors of a human form. The villagers are clearly evolved either from humans or a human-like ancestor, but are not themselves human. Drowned and Zombies perhaps were once human, but unlike zombie villagers, it seems that they cannot be cured. (Maybe he will find a way. Maybe, maybe.)

The Endermen are peaceful when respected, if unnerving. They used to frighten him, but he has been alone for so long; the empty horizon that once held hope has become so unwelcoming that the garbled syllables of these flitting black figures are almost a comfort. He talks back to them, seeing patterns in the handful of noises they repeat that aren’t there.

He has followed the clues left in the ruins, piecing together doors to the hellish, inhospitable realms the previous inhabitants of this world must have tried to escape to, and encountered incomprehensible beings. He has discovered weapons and ancient texts imbued with magic and learned to replicate it.

It has been so long. He has traveled so far, from the harsh, unforgiving lands of the desert, over mountains and into sticky jungles, and there is never a new clue, a new signal, something, anything left that might indicate that there are survivors.

So what would he think, if he saw someone appear, standing in the doorway of the fortress he has built over the years, someone human? Someone else, after so long spent searching? After so long spent knowing, deep, deep down, that there is no one else left?

What is more likely? That he would think this is a surviving human, incomprehensibly, after all this time?

Or that this is yet another being, in a world of magic and strange power, that once was human, or is trying to be human, or is not quite human, that is just

better than the others at pretending?

[orteil42]

what if we meet intelligent alien life out there but the novelty eventually wears off and we’re back to “i wonder if we’re alone in the universe or if there’s more than just humans and galorphasians”

[satanicpornocultshop]

Please .

[whitepeopletwitter]

[ummmdealwithit]

That’s her personal page and she’s not a public figure nor is she trying to be. Sorry dude. If a random mathematician was constantly being asked to dumb down the content on their personal page that they run in their spare time so everyone could understand and they simply said “you will need to study more to understand the content of this page” no one would bat an eye. No one would call them classist or ableist. Why is that such an unacceptable statement coming from someone in the humanities?

I'm literally upset about her comments on why someone wouldn't be up to her level. Saying its a form of anti-intellectualism to simplify concepts is super not okay, and I was also ask someone in a mathematics to not use that language in a post. It has nothing to do with the fact they personally don't want to explain things, and everything with the way they talked about people who don't already get it. Also the comments about "mostly rejecting thier highschool education " is putting blame on people who are uneducated as if its a choice they made. You can simplify things down to make them accessible without loosing all of the context, and yeah you might lose some of the content, but id rather someone understand 70% of a text over zero of it by simplifying it down. Most of my friend group is people who are in high level mathematics and they explain stuff in easier terms for me to understand all the time. I'm saying its not a problem to ask for that clarity, and its not a problem to not give it, its a problem to assume people will be able to figure shit out on thier own, and its a problem to assume people made the choice to have worse education.

[aresstan]

Hot take but you can’t learn about paganism without also learning about white supremacy and how it uses pagan religions to push hate group agendas all over the world today. If you don’t learn about the connections between the two and how it operates, your ignorance enables white supremacists to keep on doing it and using it to recruit others. People in our community who do nothing and stay silent are literally a part of the problem, there is no opting out whatsoever. Divorcing the two makes the issue repeat itself over and over and over again.

It’s not hard to include this in your research and stay aware. It’s the bare minimum.

[stimman4000]

this video was made by the devil

[nico-nico-knee]

ah, 5-minute crafts. i can almost guarantee you that most of these won’t even work

[such-justice-wow]

This youtuber does debunking videos and I recognise some of those from her videos

[bleauberry]

I love Ann Reardon when she shits all over these fake how-to videos.

[such-justice-wow]

Yeah she’s great! Her videos were actually featured on a BBC segment on twitter about how dangerous some of these life hacks can be to attempt

[sharkflip]

So the debunking video above led me to watch another debunking video, which started down a very intriguing wormhole of asking why people are producing fake how-to videos like this, and the short version is they’re exploiting algorithms to generate ad revenue and the long version is they’re produced by a Russian content farm that has made some forays into American political ads.

Which is abruptly sobering and worth watching.

[waayix]

Ann Reardon also has a patreon to help keep her channel running because of this shitty algorithm, PLEASE GO SUPPORT HER WHILE YOU CAN!

She seriously doesn’t deserve the treatment youtube’s been giving her, so please support her as much as you can and make sure this shitty farming channel goes down in flames. 

It promotes EXTREMELY DANGEROUS activities such as PUTTING STRAWBERRIES INTO A GLASS OF BLEACH TO TURN THEM WHITE WHICH IS POISONOUS. AND POURING LAVA HOT CARAMEL ONTO A SPINNING WHISK, WHICH WOULD EASILY BURN YOU AND LEAVE A SCAR.

It’s amazing how youtube still tolerates this kind of behavior just because it’s pumping out videos 24/7 and sucking up all of the views. It’s unacceptable and it needs to be stopped as soon as possible.

Again, support Ann Reardon and her cause as much as possible and report the opposing videos promoting this shit. DO NOT LEAVE A COMMENT ON THE VIDEOS! YOU’LL ONLY GIVE THE ALGORITHM THE IDEA THAT THE VIDEO IS SHAREABLE!

[largishcat]

i genuinely don’t get cishet monsterfuckers. for context, in the wake of shape of water i participated in this loving-the-monstrous type discussion event slash publishing party wherein i debuted a short story about a woman who “befriends” a cave monster—but that isnt the point. the point is i had to hear straight women talk for hours about how the appeal of monsters is some kind of weird “taming the beast” fantasy—loving a monster until it loves you back, sounding like every bad beauty and the beast take ever.

And there’s my queer ass being like literally none of you get it. this isn’t about power, this is about love and alienation and acceptance. you dumbasses, I’m the monster. this isn’t a metaphor for your shitty boyfriend, this is a metaphor for my own alienation from a society that tells me a the way i am and the way I love are grotesque. this is a fantasy of love free of judgement, separate from societal standards that I’ll never live up to anyway. that ghoul doesn’t care if I’m fat, they think it’s hot that I eat well. that immortal fae creature doesn’t care if the gender on my birth certificate matches the one I use now, they barely have a concept of gender in the first place. that tentacle monster doesn’t care if I shave, they don’t have eyes

monsterfucking is queer culture, everyone else go home

[redwaltz]

Oh. I'm guessing those were all yt women, too. Del Toro isn't Queer, afaik, but he -is- Mexican in the us. It wasn't really that long ago that interracial relationships were just as forbidden and taboo as Queer ones and there's still obviously race tensions going on. The other in Shape of the Water is just as much, and likely written as, being a different race and the feeling of alienation of having a different place of origin. It happens to resonate with everyone who's ever been considered a monster by society, and there's not just one way this has happened.

The whole “love someone until they're not a monster” is extra, super gross in that context because people don't feel BIPOC are actually capable of human emotions who need to be taught to be human by some benevolent yt person who's fetishised their body.

[largishcat]

reblog this version pls

[leia-connor-vas-serenity]

It’s important to remember that disabled people are also included in this other, both by society and textually in Shape of Water.  Elisa, the lead, is mute, and deals with a lot of shit because of it, particularly from the cishet white man villain.  Her disability is also what allows her to connect to the monster, as she’s able to teach him ASL signs he can communicate with.  They’re able to connect because they’re both different.  To this day, disabled people face a lot of barriers to relationships, like potentially losing disability benefits if they get married in the US. 

[polacrilexgarden-deactivated202]

Del Toro has a lot of works that boil down to “Different is good and the people trying to fight for the status quo are the true evil here” (shoutout to Pan’s Labyrinth where, in a world full of monsters, the primary antagonist is a white fascist general and abuser).

[rembrandtswife]

This whole thread is very good but I just want to know if "in the wake of shape of water" was a deliberate pun or no

[elfyourmother]

GDT literally said the Asset’s story was an immigrant story. like, I was even in the room where and when he said it, at a Q&A session w Rolling Stone in the theater following a screening of the film at the AMC Lincoln Square on opening weekend here in NYC. It’s prolly on YouTube somewhere.

[rui-cifer]

When I was in undergrad, during my methodology class, my professor (and advisor) was asked, “How do you keep your journal articles jargon-free?” and his answer was, “After a certain level, you simply cannot, and to do so would actually make your writing bad historical writing.” He then went on to compare two different articles by the same author written in a journal where undergraduates can submit, and a journal where only phd. can submit.

The difference in language was subtle but noticeable, because there is an implicit understanding that the article is written for someone who has the necessary background on the subject. The writer was able to not have to explain every concept in a journal for phd., since the readers were supposed to bring a baseline of knowledge, or know how and where to go to be educated (or who to ask). This is despite the fact that both were available via jstor.

There will always be people having conversations about things that are beyond your understandig on the topic. I do not instantly understand nuclear physics or computer science or organic chemistry, but I give credentialed people that I know aren’t cranks the benefit of doubt that they know what’s going on. This respect is often not extended to humanities people talking about their work because “blue curtain is just blue” people think the high school education they mostly rejected puts them on the same field of discussion as people educated on the subject. Yet, these are the people who get mad when they find that rudely interjecting into a conversation where everyone else is on the same page and saying understanding the conversation is too hard in an extremely hostile manner gets a answered with hostility.

The bottom line is, you aren’t entitled to understanding everything you come across instantly. If you do not understand the conversation, it is your job to either get educated on the subject if it seems interesting enough, or move on if it seems incomprehensible and is not something you’d care about. If you enter a conversation you are not ready for, that is on you, not people bewildered at your antics.

[rui-cifer]

Specifically, I’m talking about people like this that leave dumb comments on any posts on complex issues that have words with more than 3 syllables.

It is absolutely a form of anti-intellectualism to say that all things should be understood to all people inherently or that conversations should be simplified until this is true. Sometimes, you are the one that needs to read a book until you understand. There is nothing wrong with being uneducated on complex subjects, but to then reject complexity since you did not instantly understand it is dangerous and only help people who seeks to undermine nuances in complex issues.

[ummmdealwithit]

Hey accessibility is speaking in ways that the average person can understand, especially when it’s stuff that concerns them. If you want to figure out why anti-vax and anti-science rhetoric is gaining traction its because the only sources on alot of issues, that are understandable by average people, are places like fox news. Also its a disability issue as well, sorry that some of us have adhd, or dyslexia, or other disabilities that make it incredibly hard to understand journals and articles the way they’re written now. The current approach at my boyfriend stem university is teaching thier students how to communicate with the general public, because you’re being a dick if you’re not. Also let’s not blame people who got piss poor educations on them not trying hard enough. There’s a serious issue in America with education and alot of people I know barley can read at an 8th grade level, and thats not on them. Seriously consider how harmful takes like this are, esp from an intersectional viewpoint.

[rui-cifer]

well, maybe consider that the conversations are sometimes not always aimed at average people, which is the entire point of this post. Not everything is written for everyone, which, I repeat, is the entire point of this post, something you are seemingly willfully ignoring. Of course, when I give lectures about Japanese culture at conventions sometimes, I don’t use the same language as when I write in journals where I submit articles, which was the entire point of the anecdote in the first post. “You are not entitled to instantly understanding everything,” is not, “You are not owed anything, ever,” something that should be understood if you read what I said with any amount of good faith, since I speciically talk about how sometimes, people go find others who know better on the post. I learned a lot (and still learn a lot) stumbling into office hours and just rapid-firing questions at professors, asking for good books on subjects and clarifications on concepts, something you can literally also do here if you find someone who seems knowledgeable enough on the subject, as long as you aren’t being rude about it.

Also, as long as we’re donig idpol, lmao the assumption that neither me nor the person that sunzonked was responding to ( @ratliker1917​ btw) are neurodivergent is so funny. Throwing around charges of ableism on “you have to be prepared not to understand everything that people speak on unless you do your due in studying the subject, too,” because the person writing the post did not disclose their entire medical history to strangers online is odious. Please don’t act like this with other people. English is my 3rd language, too, if you want to be ~intersectional~ about things. This is also not about “getting piss poor education” lol this is about people who willfully reject the notion of deeper, critical things in humanities, a field that I have studied and taught in.

To summarize, please don’t go off about some unrelated bullshit if you won’t even give me the act of good faith of actually reading my posts, thanks.

[ummmdealwithit]

Hey uh people who are neurodivergent can still be ableist towards neurodivergent people firstly, so no I don’t need your entire medical history on a post. Secondly, this is an extremely important discussion happening on a national level about specifically this, so it doesn’t just involve you and your area of speciality. It is a much larger issue, im just saying that if you make a public post on a social media platform, and you’re using inaccessible language, people are going to ask for a translation, and it seems like you are interrupting that as an insult towards you for using language you’re comfortable with, when it actually is most of the time people desperately wanting to learn more and understand, and I think its doing a disservice to them to write it off as “this is a conversation for those who know, this doesn’t concern you, read a book and then we’ll talk”. Not everything is written for everyone sure, but if alot of people are asking to be included and learn more thats a good thing and should be congratulated not met with a dismissal.

[rui-cifer]

this is an extremely important discussion happening on a national level about specifically this, so it doesn’t just involve you and your area of speciality

This post wasn’t about scientific literacy and the general public, you willfully ignorant piece of shit. It is literally just about the humanities. In fact, I specifically have a section about how humanities is done dirty in regards to this because of how people treat STEM differently than humanities, but here I am, dealing with this again. If you’re insistent on making posts about this, did you know there’s a button you can press that lets you talk about stuff you want to talk about, instead of derailing a woman talking about her experiences in academia?

This is what it looks like. You should press it. Also, as I said in another post, you should shut the fuck up and stop treating social media where people talk to friends and colleagues as office hour for academics and learn to….. ask politely, as a bare minimum, while showing that you’ve at least tried to meet the conversation halfway. When people are calling, once again, trans women talking about stuff with her friends “abnormal,” then trans women are allowed to be rude back and further, academics are allowed to say, “not every moment of my waking life and interfacing with the public is an office hour. Please let me talk to my friends. I am not working right now,” a basic right not to do unpaid work outside of working hours that should be afforded to everyone, not just academics. Stop being a neoliberal that wants to gig economize and turn everything into work, which is another conversation that is going on in academia, lol.

[ummmdealwithit]

Yeah and you can just not respond to people asking for clarification if you don’t want to. Just don’t shit on people literally trying to understand better, because it comes off as ableist and classist. I’m going into humanities too, I just know what going on in the academic spector of stem currently alot better. But humanites are super inaccessible to people who are at the poverty line even moreso than stem half the time, so please don’t assume similar issues don’t affect you. Id make my own post if I diddnt think this one was made this some harmful rhetoric that affected groups I’m a part of.

[rui-cifer]

You’re literally advocating that academics hold unpaid office hour with every beligerent person ever instead of having the guts to tell them, “hey, fuck off. I’m not talking to you right now, and you’re not ready to have this discussion.” Are you going to pay me hourly for this? Is my university? If I am doing unpaid labor, how am I getting compensated? Do you imagine that academics should have no boundaries or try to never actively assert them? Are we just means to an end, a tool, and not humans? This is the capitalist nightmare that we’re headed towards where there is no boundaries between work and not-work, one that many, many academics are pushing against. “harmful rhetoric that affected groups I’m a part of,” as if I’m sitting here making six figures. Fucking news flash: every academic is also one paycheck away from poverty or at poverty because of shitty capitalist world we live in. Is it harmful for an academic to talk about how she has to assert boundaries on where she’s having what kind of conversation? I hope you get that capitalist brain worm out of your head that makes you see people and professions as tools and not humans with needs, and I hope you don’t act like this in regards to other boundary-setting acts you see online. It’s actually very creepy.

[ummmdealwithit]

Yeah I’m not going to be making money going into academics either and I’m literally just saying telling people to go “read a book” or put in the effort on thier own is not okay because not everyone is coming from place where they’re able to do that. Not everyone has reading comprehension skills, and its okay for you to make a boundary in your life saying you personally will not be explaining it. But making a post that uses language putting the blame on others for not being up to where you’re at versus being upset at the intuitions that have caused it is shitty. Just don’t use language talking about how people who can’t follow along with your posts, just diddnt work for it in highschool. Understand there’s alot of issues at play here and you did use blaming language towards a group of people who really have no choice in it. Please don’t tell me I have a capitalism problem when im asking you to blame the system and not individuals, and how most of the communication gaps aren’t the fault of those who can’t understand it. You personally don’t have to be the one to help them, but please don’t shit on them for asking for help.

[rui-cifer]

Actually, setting boundaries and even insisting on boundaries on whether you’re talking to people or educating is very okay. If you think otherwise, please learn not to disrepect people’s boundaries. Also, demanding that workers always do labor, unpaid or not, is a problem of brainrot coming from internalizing too much of capitalist propaganda. If people act for help in ways that is clearly hostile and in bad faith, people are allowed to set their boundaries firmly and strongly, even if it is “shitting on them.” You have begun to see people as tools to make society better, and not their own autonomous beings with their own sets of boundaries. Please do not act like this towards anyone. It is very dehumanizing and creepy.

[ummmdealwithit]

Alright ima set a boundary for you right now, you used classist and ableist rhetoric period, using talking points about how its rooted in lazyness or lack of trying to not understand academic language is ableist and classist. I’m not asking you to explain to anyone, I’m just saying when setting up your boundaries don’t use talking points that are directly harmful. And I’m advocating for you to not put others down when you’re talking about problems you face. I hope your don’t act like this in your personal life, because it comes off as really defensive and really arrogant.

[rui-cifer]

Are you hearing yourself right now lol It’s not “classist” or “ableist” at all and you’re falling back into this instead of doing a once-over on what I said. If you read everything in bad faith, of course you’ll find that it’s bigoted, instead of seeing it as an academic setting healthy boundaries. You don’t even understand what boundaries are if you think “actually I’m right,” is boundary setting. This is btw why neolbieral co-option of social justice language is dangerous. Just absolutely ghoulish exchange I’ve been having.

At least you stopped talking about intersectionality, as if everyone you talk to is white and cishet. Disgusting.

[ummmdealwithit]

Umm same goes to you? You’re reading what I wrote in bad faith, also im not copting anything? Those are my communities? I have every right to talk about them, and its not neo-liberalism to say hey let’s not discount the feelings of those people in those groups. And yeah intersectionality is a really valid talking point on this because its literally about an intersection of people in humanities interacting with people in different groups and someone asking to be more considerate of how you talk about it. I really hope you can find a good balance of setting boundaries without attacking people who are just trying to learn.

[rui-cifer]

The problem is, you came onto my post. If you made your own post and I responded, sure, but if you’re acting in like an absolute hog on my post, I get to, turns out, shoot back. You can’t “no you,” me when you’re on my post. If someone tells you, “Hey you’re acting like a weirdo in my room. Get the hell out of my house,” you can’t say, “you’re being rude back!” You should learn to see when people are fucking telling you that you’re being rude and people you’re acting like this towards are unhappy about it. You don’t seem to understand anything you’re talking about and you’re acting really, really, rude and I’ve been more than patient with you, all things considered. You keep bringing up bigotries to accuse the person that’s literally a part of the class that you pretend to speak on behalf of towards, but you’re being a fine job at being an asshole without me having to accuse you of anything. If you’re this fucking unapologetically rude and brainwormed towards me in the next post, I’ll just block and move on, since I don’t think I’ll be getting through to a neoliberal like you.

[ummmdealwithit]

Hey I am part of the class im speaking on behalf of, I went to a prison to pipeline school, and I'm literally going into humanities, you were saying harmful things about people who are less educated then you, and the reasons they might be. Block me for disagreeing with you thats fine, but instead of looking at how you may of misspoke and hurt people, who turned this into something so much bigger. Sorry for engaging in discourse with you? I'm saying you read my response in bad faith when I said hey this is a shitty take and you should relook at it because of xy and z

[rui-cifer]

When I was in undergrad, during my methodology class, my professor (and advisor) was asked, "How do you keep your journal articles jargon-free?" and his answer was, "After a certain level, you simply cannot, and to do so would actually make your writing bad historical writing." He then went on to compare two different articles by the same author written in a journal where undergraduates can submit, and a journal where only phd. can submit.

The difference in language was subtle but noticeable, because there is an implicit understanding that the article is written for someone who has the necessary background on the subject. The writer was able to not have to explain every concept in a journal for phd., since the readers were supposed to bring a baseline of knowledge, or know how and where to go to be educated (or who to ask). This is despite the fact that both were available via jstor.

There will always be people having conversations about things that are beyond your understandig on the topic. I do not instantly understand nuclear physics or computer science or organic chemistry, but I give credentialed people that I know aren't cranks the benefit of doubt that they know what's going on. This respect is often not extended to humanities people talking about their work because "blue curtain is just blue" people think the high school education they mostly rejected puts them on the same field of discussion as people educated on the subject. Yet, these are the people who get mad when they find that rudely interjecting into a conversation where everyone else is on the same page and saying understanding the conversation is too hard in an extremely hostile manner gets a answered with hostility.

The bottom line is, you aren't entitled to understanding everything you come across instantly. If you do not understand the conversation, it is your job to either get educated on the subject if it seems interesting enough, or move on if it seems incomprehensible and is not something you'd care about. If you enter a conversation you are not ready for, that is on you, not people bewildered at your antics.

[rui-cifer]

Specifically, I'm talking about people like this that leave dumb comments on any posts on complex issues that have words with more than 3 syllables.

It is absolutely a form of anti-intellectualism to say that all things should be understood to all people inherently or that conversations should be simplified until this is true. Sometimes, you are the one that needs to read a book until you understand. There is nothing wrong with being uneducated on complex subjects, but to then reject complexity since you did not instantly understand it is dangerous and only help people who seeks to undermine nuances in complex issues.

[ummmdealwithit]

Hey accessibility is speaking in ways that the average person can understand, especially when it's stuff that concerns them. If you want to figure out why anti-vax and anti-science rhetoric is gaining traction its because the only sources on alot of issues, that are understandable by average people, are places like fox news. Also its a disability issue as well, sorry that some of us have adhd, or dyslexia, or other disabilities that make it incredibly hard to understand journals and articles the way they're written now. The current approach at my boyfriend stem university is teaching thier students how to communicate with the general public, because you're being a dick if you're not. Also let's not blame people who got piss poor educations on them not trying hard enough. There's a serious issue in America with education and alot of people I know barley can read at an 8th grade level, and thats not on them. Seriously consider how harmful takes like this are, esp from an intersectional viewpoint.

[professorrivertam]

I kind of think the point of this is, you have to *know your audience*. If you’re trying to communicate with laypeople, who will obviously not have the same expertise as people in the field, then yeah! Of course you have to make your language accessible! But if you’re trying to communicate with others with your level of expertise, that’s a different situation.

When I’m around people who know a lot about the inner workings of cars and are talking about mechanical things, that conversation is mostly lost on me and I don’t expect them to bring the conversation down to my level. If they tried, a lot of the detail they have in their conversation is lost AND the conversation is slowed down to where they no longer get what they’re looking for out of it. This is not a slight, or a refusal to make the conversation accessible! It’s just a conversation that isn’t targeted at me, so I’ll listen and absorb what I can and hope they move in to a new topic soon so I can participate again.

It’s not at all unreasonable for someone to use their expertise in making a post, if they’re trying to communicate with others who are also versed in that topic. Someone who isn’t familiar with the jargon but is interested can quite reasonably be expected to encounter a term or a concept and say to themselves, “Hm. I don’t know what that is, and I clearly need to in order to understand that post. Let me go and look it up so I can understand what’s going on.” The point here is not that every reader should already know everything they need to access the post, but rather that if they’re interested in a post they can’t immediately access, it is completely reasonable to expect them to seek more information and not yell at the OP for being confusing.

Expecting all content to be designed for all possible readers is unreasonable. If they’re trying to inform those without expertise, then yes, it should be accessible and low on jargon. But in my experience, that’s exactly what happens most of the time.

[ummmdealwithit]

Posts on social media platforms like tumblr should be written in a way most people can understand, especially about important topics, or the very least have a tl:dr section to summarize what is happening. I think the problem is alot of people, especially in posts asking for community help use jargon but also use incredibly hard to understand vocabulary if you unfortunately grew up with a poor education. And it is a seriously widespread problem, if it wasn't there wouldn't be courses at stem universities centered around it being a concern. Yeah I can follow people who are vaccine specialists on Twitter, but if non of them are willing to speak in a way I can understand, I've learned nothing, and journals should be more understandable period, because it causes problems when interdisciplinary projects happen where a computer scientist can't understand what a mechanical engineer is on about. Not using common language in academics makes it incredibly hard to get into if you weren't brought up in that world, and it furthers a bigger divide between classes. If someone is asking for a translation they understand on a public website, thats asking to know more, to further thier knowledge, they're actively trying, its just a much bigger problem than tumblr, and academics and scientists have really woken up to it being a problem this year.

[professorrivertam]

That is a fair point, and it’s definitely worth having further conversation about. As someone who avoids Twitter, I can’t claim to be aware of common practices people use for spreading information there - I would have assumed that, logically, since they’re communicating with the general public, they would want to do so in accessible language. No argument there. I also think there’s something to be said for improving resources to make them more accessible for people outside of the field for exactly the reason you mention (interdisciplinary work).

The problem is, though, most fields have specialized language for a reason. As a math teacher, l use a platform called Desmos extensively. When I go and make or comment on a post on the Desmos Facebook page about ways I’m using the platform or how to fix a problem someone is having, I don’t take the time to explain that Desmos is a website that has a powerful graphing calculator and also hosts a variety of educational activities, as well as allowing teachers to make their own or that CL is short for “computation layer” which is the code used on the activities to make different pieces of the activity interact with each other and the students’ responses. Everyone I’m there to talk to already has some level of background knowledge on the topic, and taking the time to explain it would really interfere with the productivity of the conversation.

When working on a project within a field, using specialized language increases the efficiency of communication. And when you’re immersed in your field all the time, you can easily forget which ones aren’t common knowledge. This is not inherently bad, but is definitely something to consciously work on with public messaging, especially with things like vaccines (especially during a pandemic). I suspect the reason vaccine specialists on Twitter aren’t simplifying their language is because specialists communicating directly with the general public is a relatively new idea (thanks, social media!). Info on vaccines used to be communicated to people through doctors, journalists, and health educators, not directly from the people who created them. Therefore, it is the responsibility of these specialists to intentionally make their communication accessible to their audience of the general populace, even if that means they have to learn how to do so.

The concern to me is less about people who ask for a translation into accessible language and more about people who get rude about other people communicating with each other in a way they don’t understand, because they feel that they are entitled to access to all conversations on all topics. I would welcome clarifying questions on an informational post I made, but if someone came at me with hostility because I didn’t anticipate that the language I used might be a barrier to someone, I would be 1. Less likely to help, and 2. On the defensive.

tl;dr I recognize a need for conversation around how to make information more accessible to those who need it, whether for interdisciplinary projects or public information purposes. However, I don’t think it’s wrong to use specialized language for work, writing, or posts that are intended for other people with a certain level of background knowledge. If someone asks for clarification I’m happy to give it, but don’t be a jerk. Know the audience you’re writing for, and if they tell you they didn’t understand, you need to communicate in more accessible language. But know that not all writing/communication CAN be accessible to laypeople and still serve its purpose.

[ummmdealwithit]

I agree 100% I diddnt realize this was about a specific situation where people were being directly hostile to you about it and that's my bad, out of context it did seem like someone bashing on people who needed the help. Thank you for taking time to help me understand where you're coming from.

[professorrivertam]

As it happens, I’ve not been on the receiving end, but I’ve seen others who have (I mostly come here for the memes). I’m all for people trying to learn more, whether by asking questions or seeking outside information. I just think it’s foolish to suggest that all academic vocabulary is inherently harmful and that all content should be jargon-free because that just isn’t realistic or useful. Thanks for holding a calm and reasoned discussion with me :)

[ummmdealwithit]

Yeah I think we should be striving to make everything as accessible as I can be, but sometimes as it can be, can involve jargon and a more complex vocabulary. It really is just balancing it, and not blaming groups that aren't there yet. Thank you for having a calm discussion with me too, I forgot how fast discussions on here can blow up. I really appreciate you taking time to have a peaceful conversation with me.

[rui-cifer]

When I was in undergrad, during my methodology class, my professor (and advisor) was asked, “How do you keep your journal articles jargon-free?” and his answer was, “After a certain level, you simply cannot, and to do so would actually make your writing bad historical writing.” He then went on to compare two different articles by the same author written in a journal where undergraduates can submit, and a journal where only phd. can submit.

The difference in language was subtle but noticeable, because there is an implicit understanding that the article is written for someone who has the necessary background on the subject. The writer was able to not have to explain every concept in a journal for phd., since the readers were supposed to bring a baseline of knowledge, or know how and where to go to be educated (or who to ask). This is despite the fact that both were available via jstor.

There will always be people having conversations about things that are beyond your understandig on the topic. I do not instantly understand nuclear physics or computer science or organic chemistry, but I give credentialed people that I know aren’t cranks the benefit of doubt that they know what’s going on. This respect is often not extended to humanities people talking about their work because “blue curtain is just blue” people think the high school education they mostly rejected puts them on the same field of discussion as people educated on the subject. Yet, these are the people who get mad when they find that rudely interjecting into a conversation where everyone else is on the same page and saying understanding the conversation is too hard in an extremely hostile manner gets a answered with hostility.

The bottom line is, you aren’t entitled to understanding everything you come across instantly. If you do not understand the conversation, it is your job to either get educated on the subject if it seems interesting enough, or move on if it seems incomprehensible and is not something you’d care about. If you enter a conversation you are not ready for, that is on you, not people bewildered at your antics.

[rui-cifer]

Specifically, I’m talking about people like this that leave dumb comments on any posts on complex issues that have words with more than 3 syllables.

It is absolutely a form of anti-intellectualism to say that all things should be understood to all people inherently or that conversations should be simplified until this is true. Sometimes, you are the one that needs to read a book until you understand. There is nothing wrong with being uneducated on complex subjects, but to then reject complexity since you did not instantly understand it is dangerous and only help people who seeks to undermine nuances in complex issues.

[ummmdealwithit]

Hey accessibility is speaking in ways that the average person can understand, especially when it’s stuff that concerns them. If you want to figure out why anti-vax and anti-science rhetoric is gaining traction its because the only sources on alot of issues, that are understandable by average people, are places like fox news. Also its a disability issue as well, sorry that some of us have adhd, or dyslexia, or other disabilities that make it incredibly hard to understand journals and articles the way they’re written now. The current approach at my boyfriend stem university is teaching thier students how to communicate with the general public, because you’re being a dick if you’re not. Also let’s not blame people who got piss poor educations on them not trying hard enough. There’s a serious issue in America with education and alot of people I know barley can read at an 8th grade level, and thats not on them. Seriously consider how harmful takes like this are, esp from an intersectional viewpoint.

[rui-cifer]

well, maybe consider that the conversations are sometimes not always aimed at average people, which is the entire point of this post. Not everything is written for everyone, which, I repeat, is the entire point of this post, something you are seemingly willfully ignoring. Of course, when I give lectures about Japanese culture at conventions sometimes, I don’t use the same language as when I write in journals where I submit articles, which was the entire point of the anecdote in the first post. “You are not entitled to instantly understanding everything,” is not, “You are not owed anything, ever,” something that should be understood if you read what I said with any amount of good faith, since I speciically talk about how sometimes, people go find others who know better on the post. I learned a lot (and still learn a lot) stumbling into office hours and just rapid-firing questions at professors, asking for good books on subjects and clarifications on concepts, something you can literally also do here if you find someone who seems knowledgeable enough on the subject, as long as you aren’t being rude about it.

Also, as long as we’re donig idpol, lmao the assumption that neither me nor the person that sunzonked was responding to ( @ratliker1917​ btw) are neurodivergent is so funny. Throwing around charges of ableism on “you have to be prepared not to understand everything that people speak on unless you do your due in studying the subject, too,” because the person writing the post did not disclose their entire medical history to strangers online is odious. Please don’t act like this with other people. English is my 3rd language, too, if you want to be ~intersectional~ about things. This is also not about “getting piss poor education” lol this is about people who willfully reject the notion of deeper, critical things in humanities, a field that I have studied and taught in.

To summarize, please don’t go off about some unrelated bullshit if you won’t even give me the act of good faith of actually reading my posts, thanks.

[ummmdealwithit]

Hey uh people who are neurodivergent can still be ableist towards neurodivergent people firstly, so no I don’t need your entire medical history on a post. Secondly, this is an extremely important discussion happening on a national level about specifically this, so it doesn’t just involve you and your area of speciality. It is a much larger issue, im just saying that if you make a public post on a social media platform, and you’re using inaccessible language, people are going to ask for a translation, and it seems like you are interrupting that as an insult towards you for using language you’re comfortable with, when it actually is most of the time people desperately wanting to learn more and understand, and I think its doing a disservice to them to write it off as “this is a conversation for those who know, this doesn’t concern you, read a book and then we’ll talk”. Not everything is written for everyone sure, but if alot of people are asking to be included and learn more thats a good thing and should be congratulated not met with a dismissal.

[rui-cifer]

this is an extremely important discussion happening on a national level about specifically this, so it doesn’t just involve you and your area of speciality

This post wasn’t about scientific literacy and the general public, you willfully ignorant piece of shit. It is literally just about the humanities. In fact, I specifically have a section about how humanities is done dirty in regards to this because of how people treat STEM differently than humanities, but here I am, dealing with this again. If you’re insistent on making posts about this, did you know there’s a button you can press that lets you talk about stuff you want to talk about, instead of derailing a woman talking about her experiences in academia?

This is what it looks like. You should press it. Also, as I said in another post, you should shut the fuck up and stop treating social media where people talk to friends and colleagues as office hour for academics and learn to….. ask politely, as a bare minimum, while showing that you’ve at least tried to meet the conversation halfway. When people are calling, once again, trans women talking about stuff with her friends “abnormal,” then trans women are allowed to be rude back and further, academics are allowed to say, “not every moment of my waking life and interfacing with the public is an office hour. Please let me talk to my friends. I am not working right now,” a basic right not to do unpaid work outside of working hours that should be afforded to everyone, not just academics. Stop being a neoliberal that wants to gig economize and turn everything into work, which is another conversation that is going on in academia, lol.

[ummmdealwithit]

Yeah and you can just not respond to people asking for clarification if you don’t want to. Just don’t shit on people literally trying to understand better, because it comes off as ableist and classist. I’m going into humanities too, I just know what going on in the academic spector of stem currently alot better. But humanites are super inaccessible to people who are at the poverty line even moreso than stem half the time, so please don’t assume similar issues don’t affect you. Id make my own post if I diddnt think this one was made this some harmful rhetoric that affected groups I’m a part of.

[rui-cifer]

You’re literally advocating that academics hold unpaid office hour with every beligerent person ever instead of having the guts to tell them, “hey, fuck off. I’m not talking to you right now, and you’re not ready to have this discussion.” Are you going to pay me hourly for this? Is my university? If I am doing unpaid labor, how am I getting compensated? Do you imagine that academics should have no boundaries or try to never actively assert them? Are we just means to an end, a tool, and not humans? This is the capitalist nightmare that we’re headed towards where there is no boundaries between work and not-work, one that many, many academics are pushing against. “harmful rhetoric that affected groups I’m a part of,” as if I’m sitting here making six figures. Fucking news flash: every academic is also one paycheck away from poverty or at poverty because of shitty capitalist world we live in. Is it harmful for an academic to talk about how she has to assert boundaries on where she’s having what kind of conversation? I hope you get that capitalist brain worm out of your head that makes you see people and professions as tools and not humans with needs, and I hope you don’t act like this in regards to other boundary-setting acts you see online. It’s actually very creepy.

[ummmdealwithit]

Yeah I’m not going to be making money going into academics either and I’m literally just saying telling people to go “read a book” or put in the effort on thier own is not okay because not everyone is coming from place where they’re able to do that. Not everyone has reading comprehension skills, and its okay for you to make a boundary in your life saying you personally will not be explaining it. But making a post that uses language putting the blame on others for not being up to where you’re at versus being upset at the intuitions that have caused it is shitty. Just don’t use language talking about how people who can’t follow along with your posts, just diddnt work for it in highschool. Understand there’s alot of issues at play here and you did use blaming language towards a group of people who really have no choice in it. Please don’t tell me I have a capitalism problem when im asking you to blame the system and not individuals, and how most of the communication gaps aren’t the fault of those who can’t understand it. You personally don’t have to be the one to help them, but please don’t shit on them for asking for help.

[rui-cifer]

Actually, setting boundaries and even insisting on boundaries on whether you’re talking to people or educating is very okay. If you think otherwise, please learn not to disrepect people’s boundaries. Also, demanding that workers always do labor, unpaid or not, is a problem of brainrot coming from internalizing too much of capitalist propaganda. If people act for help in ways that is clearly hostile and in bad faith, people are allowed to set their boundaries firmly and strongly, even if it is “shitting on them.” You have begun to see people as tools to make society better, and not their own autonomous beings with their own sets of boundaries. Please do not act like this towards anyone. It is very dehumanizing and creepy.

[ummmdealwithit]

Alright ima set a boundary for you right now, you used classist and ableist rhetoric period, using talking points about how its rooted in lazyness or lack of trying to not understand academic language is ableist and classist. I’m not asking you to explain to anyone, I’m just saying when setting up your boundaries don’t use talking points that are directly harmful. And I’m advocating for you to not put others down when you’re talking about problems you face. I hope your don’t act like this in your personal life, because it comes off as really defensive and really arrogant.

[rui-cifer]

Are you hearing yourself right now lol It’s not “classist” or “ableist” at all and you’re falling back into this instead of doing a once-over on what I said. If you read everything in bad faith, of course you’ll find that it’s bigoted, instead of seeing it as an academic setting healthy boundaries. You don’t even understand what boundaries are if you think “actually I’m right,” is boundary setting. This is btw why neolbieral co-option of social justice language is dangerous. Just absolutely ghoulish exchange I’ve been having.

At least you stopped talking about intersectionality, as if everyone you talk to is white and cishet. Disgusting.

[ummmdealwithit]

Umm same goes to you? You're reading what I wrote in bad faith, also im not copting anything? Those are my communities? I have every right to talk about them, and its not neo-liberalism to say hey let's not discount the feelings of those people in those groups. And yeah intersectionality is a really valid talking point on this because its literally about an intersection of people in humanities interacting with people in different groups and someone asking to be more considerate of how you talk about it. I really hope you can find a good balance of setting boundaries without attacking people who are just trying to learn.

[rui-cifer]

When I was in undergrad, during my methodology class, my professor (and advisor) was asked, “How do you keep your journal articles jargon-free?” and his answer was, “After a certain level, you simply cannot, and to do so would actually make your writing bad historical writing.” He then went on to compare two different articles by the same author written in a journal where undergraduates can submit, and a journal where only phd. can submit.

The difference in language was subtle but noticeable, because there is an implicit understanding that the article is written for someone who has the necessary background on the subject. The writer was able to not have to explain every concept in a journal for phd., since the readers were supposed to bring a baseline of knowledge, or know how and where to go to be educated (or who to ask). This is despite the fact that both were available via jstor.

There will always be people having conversations about things that are beyond your understandig on the topic. I do not instantly understand nuclear physics or computer science or organic chemistry, but I give credentialed people that I know aren’t cranks the benefit of doubt that they know what’s going on. This respect is often not extended to humanities people talking about their work because “blue curtain is just blue” people think the high school education they mostly rejected puts them on the same field of discussion as people educated on the subject. Yet, these are the people who get mad when they find that rudely interjecting into a conversation where everyone else is on the same page and saying understanding the conversation is too hard in an extremely hostile manner gets a answered with hostility.

The bottom line is, you aren’t entitled to understanding everything you come across instantly. If you do not understand the conversation, it is your job to either get educated on the subject if it seems interesting enough, or move on if it seems incomprehensible and is not something you’d care about. If you enter a conversation you are not ready for, that is on you, not people bewildered at your antics.

[rui-cifer]

Specifically, I’m talking about people like this that leave dumb comments on any posts on complex issues that have words with more than 3 syllables.

It is absolutely a form of anti-intellectualism to say that all things should be understood to all people inherently or that conversations should be simplified until this is true. Sometimes, you are the one that needs to read a book until you understand. There is nothing wrong with being uneducated on complex subjects, but to then reject complexity since you did not instantly understand it is dangerous and only help people who seeks to undermine nuances in complex issues.

[ummmdealwithit]

Hey accessibility is speaking in ways that the average person can understand, especially when it’s stuff that concerns them. If you want to figure out why anti-vax and anti-science rhetoric is gaining traction its because the only sources on alot of issues, that are understandable by average people, are places like fox news. Also its a disability issue as well, sorry that some of us have adhd, or dyslexia, or other disabilities that make it incredibly hard to understand journals and articles the way they’re written now. The current approach at my boyfriend stem university is teaching thier students how to communicate with the general public, because you’re being a dick if you’re not. Also let’s not blame people who got piss poor educations on them not trying hard enough. There’s a serious issue in America with education and alot of people I know barley can read at an 8th grade level, and thats not on them. Seriously consider how harmful takes like this are, esp from an intersectional viewpoint.

[rui-cifer]

well, maybe consider that the conversations are sometimes not always aimed at average people, which is the entire point of this post. Not everything is written for everyone, which, I repeat, is the entire point of this post, something you are seemingly willfully ignoring. Of course, when I give lectures about Japanese culture at conventions sometimes, I don’t use the same language as when I write in journals where I submit articles, which was the entire point of the anecdote in the first post. “You are not entitled to instantly understanding everything,” is not, “You are not owed anything, ever,” something that should be understood if you read what I said with any amount of good faith, since I speciically talk about how sometimes, people go find others who know better on the post. I learned a lot (and still learn a lot) stumbling into office hours and just rapid-firing questions at professors, asking for good books on subjects and clarifications on concepts, something you can literally also do here if you find someone who seems knowledgeable enough on the subject, as long as you aren’t being rude about it.

Also, as long as we’re donig idpol, lmao the assumption that neither me nor the person that sunzonked was responding to ( @ratliker1917​ btw) are neurodivergent is so funny. Throwing around charges of ableism on “you have to be prepared not to understand everything that people speak on unless you do your due in studying the subject, too,” because the person writing the post did not disclose their entire medical history to strangers online is odious. Please don’t act like this with other people. English is my 3rd language, too, if you want to be ~intersectional~ about things. This is also not about “getting piss poor education” lol this is about people who willfully reject the notion of deeper, critical things in humanities, a field that I have studied and taught in.

To summarize, please don’t go off about some unrelated bullshit if you won’t even give me the act of good faith of actually reading my posts, thanks.

[ummmdealwithit]

Hey uh people who are neurodivergent can still be ableist towards neurodivergent people firstly, so no I don’t need your entire medical history on a post. Secondly, this is an extremely important discussion happening on a national level about specifically this, so it doesn’t just involve you and your area of speciality. It is a much larger issue, im just saying that if you make a public post on a social media platform, and you’re using inaccessible language, people are going to ask for a translation, and it seems like you are interrupting that as an insult towards you for using language you’re comfortable with, when it actually is most of the time people desperately wanting to learn more and understand, and I think its doing a disservice to them to write it off as “this is a conversation for those who know, this doesn’t concern you, read a book and then we’ll talk”. Not everything is written for everyone sure, but if alot of people are asking to be included and learn more thats a good thing and should be congratulated not met with a dismissal.

[rui-cifer]

this is an extremely important discussion happening on a national level about specifically this, so it doesn’t just involve you and your area of speciality

This post wasn’t about scientific literacy and the general public, you willfully ignorant piece of shit. It is literally just about the humanities. In fact, I specifically have a section about how humanities is done dirty in regards to this because of how people treat STEM differently than humanities, but here I am, dealing with this again. If you’re insistent on making posts about this, did you know there’s a button you can press that lets you talk about stuff you want to talk about, instead of derailing a woman talking about her experiences in academia?

This is what it looks like. You should press it. Also, as I said in another post, you should shut the fuck up and stop treating social media where people talk to friends and colleagues as office hour for academics and learn to….. ask politely, as a bare minimum, while showing that you’ve at least tried to meet the conversation halfway. When people are calling, once again, trans women talking about stuff with her friends “abnormal,” then trans women are allowed to be rude back and further, academics are allowed to say, “not every moment of my waking life and interfacing with the public is an office hour. Please let me talk to my friends. I am not working right now,” a basic right not to do unpaid work outside of working hours that should be afforded to everyone, not just academics. Stop being a neoliberal that wants to gig economize and turn everything into work, which is another conversation that is going on in academia, lol.

[ummmdealwithit]

Yeah and you can just not respond to people asking for clarification if you don’t want to. Just don’t shit on people literally trying to understand better, because it comes off as ableist and classist. I’m going into humanities too, I just know what going on in the academic spector of stem currently alot better. But humanites are super inaccessible to people who are at the poverty line even moreso than stem half the time, so please don’t assume similar issues don’t affect you. Id make my own post if I diddnt think this one was made this some harmful rhetoric that affected groups I’m a part of.

[rui-cifer]

You’re literally advocating that academics hold unpaid office hour with every beligerent person ever instead of having the guts to tell them, “hey, fuck off. I’m not talking to you right now, and you’re not ready to have this discussion.” Are you going to pay me hourly for this? Is my university? If I am doing unpaid labor, how am I getting compensated? Do you imagine that academics should have no boundaries or try to never actively assert them? Are we just means to an end, a tool, and not humans? This is the capitalist nightmare that we’re headed towards where there is no boundaries between work and not-work, one that many, many academics are pushing against. “harmful rhetoric that affected groups I’m a part of,” as if I’m sitting here making six figures. Fucking news flash: every academic is also one paycheck away from poverty or at poverty because of shitty capitalist world we live in. Is it harmful for an academic to talk about how she has to assert boundaries on where she’s having what kind of conversation? I hope you get that capitalist brain worm out of your head that makes you see people and professions as tools and not humans with needs, and I hope you don’t act like this in regards to other boundary-setting acts you see online. It’s actually very creepy.

[ummmdealwithit]

Yeah I’m not going to be making money going into academics either and I’m literally just saying telling people to go “read a book” or put in the effort on thier own is not okay because not everyone is coming from place where they’re able to do that. Not everyone has reading comprehension skills, and its okay for you to make a boundary in your life saying you personally will not be explaining it. But making a post that uses language putting the blame on others for not being up to where you’re at versus being upset at the intuitions that have caused it is shitty. Just don’t use language talking about how people who can’t follow along with your posts, just diddnt work for it in highschool. Understand there’s alot of issues at play here and you did use blaming language towards a group of people who really have no choice in it. Please don’t tell me I have a capitalism problem when im asking you to blame the system and not individuals, and how most of the communication gaps aren’t the fault of those who can’t understand it. You personally don’t have to be the one to help them, but please don’t shit on them for asking for help.

[rui-cifer]

Actually, setting boundaries and even insisting on boundaries on whether you’re talking to people or educating is very okay. If you think otherwise, please learn not to disrepect people’s boundaries. Also, demanding that workers always do labor, unpaid or not, is a problem of brainrot coming from internalizing too much of capitalist propaganda. If people act for help in ways that is clearly hostile and in bad faith, people are allowed to set their boundaries firmly and strongly, even if it is “shitting on them.” You have begun to see people as tools to make society better, and not their own autonomous beings with their own sets of boundaries. Please do not act like this towards anyone. It is very dehumanizing and creepy.

[ummmdealwithit]

Alright ima set a boundary for you right now, you used classist and ableist rhetoric period, using talking points about how its rooted in lazyness or lack of trying to not understand academic language is ableist and classist. I'm not asking you to explain to anyone, I'm just saying when setting up your boundaries don't use talking points that are directly harmful. And I'm advocating for you to not put others down when you're talking about problems you face. I hope your don't act like this in your personal life, because it comes off as really defensive and really arrogant.

[ummmdealwithit]

Google is free beloved

Yeah it is, and alot of people have never been taught how to effectively use it. Again the burden isn't on the academics trying thier best in thier fields, but let's also not expect random people who don't have the same level of education as you in a subject to be able to just figure it out on thier own, or shame them for asking for clarification. Just why perpuate the divide between those with education and not?

[rui-cifer]

When I was in undergrad, during my methodology class, my professor (and advisor) was asked, “How do you keep your journal articles jargon-free?” and his answer was, “After a certain level, you simply cannot, and to do so would actually make your writing bad historical writing.” He then went on to compare two different articles by the same author written in a journal where undergraduates can submit, and a journal where only phd. can submit.

The difference in language was subtle but noticeable, because there is an implicit understanding that the article is written for someone who has the necessary background on the subject. The writer was able to not have to explain every concept in a journal for phd., since the readers were supposed to bring a baseline of knowledge, or know how and where to go to be educated (or who to ask). This is despite the fact that both were available via jstor.

There will always be people having conversations about things that are beyond your understandig on the topic. I do not instantly understand nuclear physics or computer science or organic chemistry, but I give credentialed people that I know aren’t cranks the benefit of doubt that they know what’s going on. This respect is often not extended to humanities people talking about their work because “blue curtain is just blue” people think the high school education they mostly rejected puts them on the same field of discussion as people educated on the subject. Yet, these are the people who get mad when they find that rudely interjecting into a conversation where everyone else is on the same page and saying understanding the conversation is too hard in an extremely hostile manner gets a answered with hostility.

The bottom line is, you aren’t entitled to understanding everything you come across instantly. If you do not understand the conversation, it is your job to either get educated on the subject if it seems interesting enough, or move on if it seems incomprehensible and is not something you’d care about. If you enter a conversation you are not ready for, that is on you, not people bewildered at your antics.

[rui-cifer]

Specifically, I’m talking about people like this that leave dumb comments on any posts on complex issues that have words with more than 3 syllables.

It is absolutely a form of anti-intellectualism to say that all things should be understood to all people inherently or that conversations should be simplified until this is true. Sometimes, you are the one that needs to read a book until you understand. There is nothing wrong with being uneducated on complex subjects, but to then reject complexity since you did not instantly understand it is dangerous and only help people who seeks to undermine nuances in complex issues.

[ummmdealwithit]

Hey accessibility is speaking in ways that the average person can understand, especially when it’s stuff that concerns them. If you want to figure out why anti-vax and anti-science rhetoric is gaining traction its because the only sources on alot of issues, that are understandable by average people, are places like fox news. Also its a disability issue as well, sorry that some of us have adhd, or dyslexia, or other disabilities that make it incredibly hard to understand journals and articles the way they’re written now. The current approach at my boyfriend stem university is teaching thier students how to communicate with the general public, because you’re being a dick if you’re not. Also let’s not blame people who got piss poor educations on them not trying hard enough. There’s a serious issue in America with education and alot of people I know barley can read at an 8th grade level, and thats not on them. Seriously consider how harmful takes like this are, esp from an intersectional viewpoint.

[rui-cifer]

well, maybe consider that the conversations are sometimes not always aimed at average people, which is the entire point of this post. Not everything is written for everyone, which, I repeat, is the entire point of this post, something you are seemingly willfully ignoring. Of course, when I give lectures about Japanese culture at conventions sometimes, I don’t use the same language as when I write in journals where I submit articles, which was the entire point of the anecdote in the first post. “You are not entitled to instantly understanding everything,” is not, “You are not owed anything, ever,” something that should be understood if you read what I said with any amount of good faith, since I speciically talk about how sometimes, people go find others who know better on the post. I learned a lot (and still learn a lot) stumbling into office hours and just rapid-firing questions at professors, asking for good books on subjects and clarifications on concepts, something you can literally also do here if you find someone who seems knowledgeable enough on the subject, as long as you aren’t being rude about it.

Also, as long as we’re donig idpol, lmao the assumption that neither me nor the person that sunzonked was responding to ( @ratliker1917​ btw) are neurodivergent is so funny. Throwing around charges of ableism on “you have to be prepared not to understand everything that people speak on unless you do your due in studying the subject, too,” because the person writing the post did not disclose their entire medical history to strangers online is odious. Please don’t act like this with other people. English is my 3rd language, too, if you want to be ~intersectional~ about things. This is also not about “getting piss poor education” lol this is about people who willfully reject the notion of deeper, critical things in humanities, a field that I have studied and taught in.

To summarize, please don’t go off about some unrelated bullshit if you won’t even give me the act of good faith of actually reading my posts, thanks.

[ummmdealwithit]

Hey uh people who are neurodivergent can still be ableist towards neurodivergent people firstly, so no I don’t need your entire medical history on a post. Secondly, this is an extremely important discussion happening on a national level about specifically this, so it doesn’t just involve you and your area of speciality. It is a much larger issue, im just saying that if you make a public post on a social media platform, and you’re using inaccessible language, people are going to ask for a translation, and it seems like you are interrupting that as an insult towards you for using language you’re comfortable with, when it actually is most of the time people desperately wanting to learn more and understand, and I think its doing a disservice to them to write it off as “this is a conversation for those who know, this doesn’t concern you, read a book and then we’ll talk”. Not everything is written for everyone sure, but if alot of people are asking to be included and learn more thats a good thing and should be congratulated not met with a dismissal.

[rui-cifer]

this is an extremely important discussion happening on a national level about specifically this, so it doesn’t just involve you and your area of speciality

This post wasn’t about scientific literacy and the general public, you willfully ignorant piece of shit. It is literally just about the humanities. In fact, I specifically have a section about how humanities is done dirty in regards to this because of how people treat STEM differently than humanities, but here I am, dealing with this again. If you’re insistent on making posts about this, did you know there’s a button you can press that lets you talk about stuff you want to talk about, instead of derailing a woman talking about her experiences in academia?

This is what it looks like. You should press it. Also, as I said in another post, you should shut the fuck up and stop treating social media where people talk to friends and colleagues as office hour for academics and learn to….. ask politely, as a bare minimum, while showing that you’ve at least tried to meet the conversation halfway. When people are calling, once again, trans women talking about stuff with her friends “abnormal,” then trans women are allowed to be rude back and further, academics are allowed to say, “not every moment of my waking life and interfacing with the public is an office hour. Please let me talk to my friends. I am not working right now,” a basic right not to do unpaid work outside of working hours that should be afforded to everyone, not just academics. Stop being a neoliberal that wants to gig economize and turn everything into work, which is another conversation that is going on in academia, lol.

[ummmdealwithit]

Yeah and you can just not respond to people asking for clarification if you don’t want to. Just don’t shit on people literally trying to understand better, because it comes off as ableist and classist. I’m going into humanities too, I just know what going on in the academic spector of stem currently alot better. But humanites are super inaccessible to people who are at the poverty line even moreso than stem half the time, so please don’t assume similar issues don’t affect you. Id make my own post if I diddnt think this one was made this some harmful rhetoric that affected groups I’m a part of.

[rui-cifer]

You’re literally advocating that academics hold unpaid office hour with every beligerent person ever instead of having the guts to tell them, “hey, fuck off. I’m not talking to you right now, and you’re not ready to have this discussion.” Are you going to pay me hourly for this? Is my university? If I am doing unpaid labor, how am I getting compensated? Do you imagine that academics should have no boundaries or try to never actively assert them? Are we just means to an end, a tool, and not humans? This is the capitalist nightmare that we’re headed towards where there is no boundaries between work and not-work, one that many, many academics are pushing against. “harmful rhetoric that affected groups I’m a part of,” as if I’m sitting here making six figures. Fucking news flash: every academic is also one paycheck away from poverty or at poverty because of shitty capitalist world we live in. Is it harmful for an academic to talk about how she has to assert boundaries on where she’s having what kind of conversation? I hope you get that capitalist brain worm out of your head that makes you see people and professions as tools and not humans with needs, and I hope you don’t act like this in regards to other boundary-setting acts you see online. It’s actually very creepy.

[ummmdealwithit]

Yeah I'm not going to be making money going into academics either and I'm literally just saying telling people to go "read a book" or put in the effort on thier own is not okay because not everyone is coming from place where they're able to do that. Not everyone has reading comprehension skills, and its okay for you to make a boundary in your life saying you personally will not be explaining it. But making a post that uses language putting the blame on others for not being up to where you're at versus being upset at the intuitions that have caused it is shitty. Just don't use language talking about how people who can't follow along with your posts, just diddnt work for it in highschool. Understand there's alot of issues at play here and you did use blaming language towards a group of people who really have no choice in it. Please don't tell me I have a capitalism problem when im asking you to blame the system and not individuals, and how most of the communication gaps aren't the fault of those who can't understand it. You personally don't have to be the one to help them, but please don't shit on them for asking for help.

[rui-cifer]

When I was in undergrad, during my methodology class, my professor (and advisor) was asked, "How do you keep your journal articles jargon-free?" and his answer was, "After a certain level, you simply cannot, and to do so would actually make your writing bad historical writing." He then went on to compare two different articles by the same author written in a journal where undergraduates can submit, and a journal where only phd. can submit.

The difference in language was subtle but noticeable, because there is an implicit understanding that the article is written for someone who has the necessary background on the subject. The writer was able to not have to explain every concept in a journal for phd., since the readers were supposed to bring a baseline of knowledge, or know how and where to go to be educated (or who to ask). This is despite the fact that both were available via jstor.

There will always be people having conversations about things that are beyond your understandig on the topic. I do not instantly understand nuclear physics or computer science or organic chemistry, but I give credentialed people that I know aren't cranks the benefit of doubt that they know what's going on. This respect is often not extended to humanities people talking about their work because "blue curtain is just blue" people think the high school education they mostly rejected puts them on the same field of discussion as people educated on the subject. Yet, these are the people who get mad when they find that rudely interjecting into a conversation where everyone else is on the same page and saying understanding the conversation is too hard in an extremely hostile manner gets a answered with hostility.

The bottom line is, you aren't entitled to understanding everything you come across instantly. If you do not understand the conversation, it is your job to either get educated on the subject if it seems interesting enough, or move on if it seems incomprehensible and is not something you'd care about. If you enter a conversation you are not ready for, that is on you, not people bewildered at your antics.

[rui-cifer]

Specifically, I'm talking about people like this that leave dumb comments on any posts on complex issues that have words with more than 3 syllables.

It is absolutely a form of anti-intellectualism to say that all things should be understood to all people inherently or that conversations should be simplified until this is true. Sometimes, you are the one that needs to read a book until you understand. There is nothing wrong with being uneducated on complex subjects, but to then reject complexity since you did not instantly understand it is dangerous and only help people who seeks to undermine nuances in complex issues.

[ummmdealwithit]

Hey accessibility is speaking in ways that the average person can understand, especially when it's stuff that concerns them. If you want to figure out why anti-vax and anti-science rhetoric is gaining traction its because the only sources on alot of issues, that are understandable by average people, are places like fox news. Also its a disability issue as well, sorry that some of us have adhd, or dyslexia, or other disabilities that make it incredibly hard to understand journals and articles the way they're written now. The current approach at my boyfriend stem university is teaching thier students how to communicate with the general public, because you're being a dick if you're not. Also let's not blame people who got piss poor educations on them not trying hard enough. There's a serious issue in America with education and alot of people I know barley can read at an 8th grade level, and thats not on them. Seriously consider how harmful takes like this are, esp from an intersectional viewpoint.

[professorrivertam]

I kind of think the point of this is, you have to *know your audience*. If you’re trying to communicate with laypeople, who will obviously not have the same expertise as people in the field, then yeah! Of course you have to make your language accessible! But if you’re trying to communicate with others with your level of expertise, that’s a different situation.

When I’m around people who know a lot about the inner workings of cars and are talking about mechanical things, that conversation is mostly lost on me and I don’t expect them to bring the conversation down to my level. If they tried, a lot of the detail they have in their conversation is lost AND the conversation is slowed down to where they no longer get what they’re looking for out of it. This is not a slight, or a refusal to make the conversation accessible! It’s just a conversation that isn’t targeted at me, so I’ll listen and absorb what I can and hope they move in to a new topic soon so I can participate again.

It’s not at all unreasonable for someone to use their expertise in making a post, if they’re trying to communicate with others who are also versed in that topic. Someone who isn’t familiar with the jargon but is interested can quite reasonably be expected to encounter a term or a concept and say to themselves, “Hm. I don’t know what that is, and I clearly need to in order to understand that post. Let me go and look it up so I can understand what’s going on.” The point here is not that every reader should already know everything they need to access the post, but rather that if they’re interested in a post they can’t immediately access, it is completely reasonable to expect them to seek more information and not yell at the OP for being confusing.

Expecting all content to be designed for all possible readers is unreasonable. If they’re trying to inform those without expertise, then yes, it should be accessible and low on jargon. But in my experience, that’s exactly what happens most of the time.

[ummmdealwithit]

Posts on social media platforms like tumblr should be written in a way most people can understand, especially about important topics, or the very least have a tl:dr section to summarize what is happening. I think the problem is alot of people, especially in posts asking for community help use jargon but also use incredibly hard to understand vocabulary if you unfortunately grew up with a poor education. And it is a seriously widespread problem, if it wasn't there wouldn't be courses at stem universities centered around it being a concern. Yeah I can follow people who are vaccine specialists on Twitter, but if non of them are willing to speak in a way I can understand, I've learned nothing, and journals should be more understandable period, because it causes problems when interdisciplinary projects happen where a computer scientist can't understand what a mechanical engineer is on about. Not using common language in academics makes it incredibly hard to get into if you weren't brought up in that world, and it furthers a bigger divide between classes. If someone is asking for a translation they understand on a public website, thats asking to know more, to further thier knowledge, they're actively trying, its just a much bigger problem than tumblr, and academics and scientists have really woken up to it being a problem this year.

[professorrivertam]

That is a fair point, and it’s definitely worth having further conversation about. As someone who avoids Twitter, I can’t claim to be aware of common practices people use for spreading information there - I would have assumed that, logically, since they’re communicating with the general public, they would want to do so in accessible language. No argument there. I also think there’s something to be said for improving resources to make them more accessible for people outside of the field for exactly the reason you mention (interdisciplinary work).

The problem is, though, most fields have specialized language for a reason. As a math teacher, l use a platform called Desmos extensively. When I go and make or comment on a post on the Desmos Facebook page about ways I’m using the platform or how to fix a problem someone is having, I don’t take the time to explain that Desmos is a website that has a powerful graphing calculator and also hosts a variety of educational activities, as well as allowing teachers to make their own or that CL is short for “computation layer” which is the code used on the activities to make different pieces of the activity interact with each other and the students’ responses. Everyone I’m there to talk to already has some level of background knowledge on the topic, and taking the time to explain it would really interfere with the productivity of the conversation.

When working on a project within a field, using specialized language increases the efficiency of communication. And when you’re immersed in your field all the time, you can easily forget which ones aren’t common knowledge. This is not inherently bad, but is definitely something to consciously work on with public messaging, especially with things like vaccines (especially during a pandemic). I suspect the reason vaccine specialists on Twitter aren’t simplifying their language is because specialists communicating directly with the general public is a relatively new idea (thanks, social media!). Info on vaccines used to be communicated to people through doctors, journalists, and health educators, not directly from the people who created them. Therefore, it is the responsibility of these specialists to intentionally make their communication accessible to their audience of the general populace, even if that means they have to learn how to do so.

The concern to me is less about people who ask for a translation into accessible language and more about people who get rude about other people communicating with each other in a way they don’t understand, because they feel that they are entitled to access to all conversations on all topics. I would welcome clarifying questions on an informational post I made, but if someone came at me with hostility because I didn’t anticipate that the language I used might be a barrier to someone, I would be 1. Less likely to help, and 2. On the defensive.

tl;dr I recognize a need for conversation around how to make information more accessible to those who need it, whether for interdisciplinary projects or public information purposes. However, I don’t think it’s wrong to use specialized language for work, writing, or posts that are intended for other people with a certain level of background knowledge. If someone asks for clarification I’m happy to give it, but don’t be a jerk. Know the audience you’re writing for, and if they tell you they didn’t understand, you need to communicate in more accessible language. But know that not all writing/communication CAN be accessible to laypeople and still serve its purpose.

[ummmdealwithit]

I agree 100% I diddnt realize this was about a specific situation where people were being directly hostile to you about it and that's my bad, out of context it did seem like someone bashing on people who needed the help. Thank you for taking time to help me understand where you're coming from.

[rui-cifer]

When I was in undergrad, during my methodology class, my professor (and advisor) was asked, “How do you keep your journal articles jargon-free?” and his answer was, “After a certain level, you simply cannot, and to do so would actually make your writing bad historical writing.” He then went on to compare two different articles by the same author written in a journal where undergraduates can submit, and a journal where only phd. can submit.

The difference in language was subtle but noticeable, because there is an implicit understanding that the article is written for someone who has the necessary background on the subject. The writer was able to not have to explain every concept in a journal for phd., since the readers were supposed to bring a baseline of knowledge, or know how and where to go to be educated (or who to ask). This is despite the fact that both were available via jstor.

There will always be people having conversations about things that are beyond your understandig on the topic. I do not instantly understand nuclear physics or computer science or organic chemistry, but I give credentialed people that I know aren’t cranks the benefit of doubt that they know what’s going on. This respect is often not extended to humanities people talking about their work because “blue curtain is just blue” people think the high school education they mostly rejected puts them on the same field of discussion as people educated on the subject. Yet, these are the people who get mad when they find that rudely interjecting into a conversation where everyone else is on the same page and saying understanding the conversation is too hard in an extremely hostile manner gets a answered with hostility.

The bottom line is, you aren’t entitled to understanding everything you come across instantly. If you do not understand the conversation, it is your job to either get educated on the subject if it seems interesting enough, or move on if it seems incomprehensible and is not something you’d care about. If you enter a conversation you are not ready for, that is on you, not people bewildered at your antics.

[rui-cifer]

Specifically, I’m talking about people like this that leave dumb comments on any posts on complex issues that have words with more than 3 syllables.

It is absolutely a form of anti-intellectualism to say that all things should be understood to all people inherently or that conversations should be simplified until this is true. Sometimes, you are the one that needs to read a book until you understand. There is nothing wrong with being uneducated on complex subjects, but to then reject complexity since you did not instantly understand it is dangerous and only help people who seeks to undermine nuances in complex issues.

[ummmdealwithit]

Hey accessibility is speaking in ways that the average person can understand, especially when it’s stuff that concerns them. If you want to figure out why anti-vax and anti-science rhetoric is gaining traction its because the only sources on alot of issues, that are understandable by average people, are places like fox news. Also its a disability issue as well, sorry that some of us have adhd, or dyslexia, or other disabilities that make it incredibly hard to understand journals and articles the way they’re written now. The current approach at my boyfriend stem university is teaching thier students how to communicate with the general public, because you’re being a dick if you’re not. Also let’s not blame people who got piss poor educations on them not trying hard enough. There’s a serious issue in America with education and alot of people I know barley can read at an 8th grade level, and thats not on them. Seriously consider how harmful takes like this are, esp from an intersectional viewpoint.

[rui-cifer]

well, maybe consider that the conversations are sometimes not always aimed at average people, which is the entire point of this post. Not everything is written for everyone, which, I repeat, is the entire point of this post, something you are seemingly willfully ignoring. Of course, when I give lectures about Japanese culture at conventions sometimes, I don’t use the same language as when I write in journals where I submit articles, which was the entire point of the anecdote in the first post. “You are not entitled to instantly understanding everything,” is not, “You are not owed anything, ever,” something that should be understood if you read what I said with any amount of good faith, since I speciically talk about how sometimes, people go find others who know better on the post. I learned a lot (and still learn a lot) stumbling into office hours and just rapid-firing questions at professors, asking for good books on subjects and clarifications on concepts, something you can literally also do here if you find someone who seems knowledgeable enough on the subject, as long as you aren’t being rude about it.

Also, as long as we’re donig idpol, lmao the assumption that neither me nor the person that sunzonked was responding to ( @ratliker1917​ btw) are neurodivergent is so funny. Throwing around charges of ableism on “you have to be prepared not to understand everything that people speak on unless you do your due in studying the subject, too,” because the person writing the post did not disclose their entire medical history to strangers online is odious. Please don’t act like this with other people. English is my 3rd language, too, if you want to be ~intersectional~ about things. This is also not about “getting piss poor education” lol this is about people who willfully reject the notion of deeper, critical things in humanities, a field that I have studied and taught in.

To summarize, please don’t go off about some unrelated bullshit if you won’t even give me the act of good faith of actually reading my posts, thanks.

[ummmdealwithit]

Hey uh people who are neurodivergent can still be ableist towards neurodivergent people firstly, so no I don’t need your entire medical history on a post. Secondly, this is an extremely important discussion happening on a national level about specifically this, so it doesn’t just involve you and your area of speciality. It is a much larger issue, im just saying that if you make a public post on a social media platform, and you’re using inaccessible language, people are going to ask for a translation, and it seems like you are interrupting that as an insult towards you for using language you’re comfortable with, when it actually is most of the time people desperately wanting to learn more and understand, and I think its doing a disservice to them to write it off as “this is a conversation for those who know, this doesn’t concern you, read a book and then we’ll talk”. Not everything is written for everyone sure, but if alot of people are asking to be included and learn more thats a good thing and should be congratulated not met with a dismissal.

[rui-cifer]

this is an extremely important discussion happening on a national level about specifically this, so it doesn’t just involve you and your area of speciality

This post wasn’t about scientific literacy and the general public, you willfully ignorant piece of shit. It is literally just about the humanities. In fact, I specifically have a section about how humanities is done dirty in regards to this because of how people treat STEM differently than humanities, but here I am, dealing with this again. If you’re insistent on making posts about this, did you know there’s a button you can press that lets you talk about stuff you want to talk about, instead of derailing a woman talking about her experiences in academia?

This is what it looks like. You should press it. Also, as I said in another post, you should shut the fuck up and stop treating social media where people talk to friends and colleagues as office hour for academics and learn to….. ask politely, as a bare minimum, while showing that you’ve at least tried to meet the conversation halfway. When people are calling, once again, trans women talking about stuff with her friends “abnormal,” then trans women are allowed to be rude back and further, academics are allowed to say, “not every moment of my waking life and interfacing with the public is an office hour. Please let me talk to my friends. I am not working right now,” a basic right not to do unpaid work outside of working hours that should be afforded to everyone, not just academics. Stop being a neoliberal that wants to gig economize and turn everything into work, which is another conversation that is going on in academia, lol.

[ummmdealwithit]

Yeah and you can just not respond to people asking for clarification if you don't want to. Just don't shit on people literally trying to understand better, because it comes off as ableist and classist. I'm going into humanities too, I just know what going on in the academic spector of stem currently alot better. But humanites are super inaccessible to people who are at the poverty line even moreso than stem half the time, so please don't assume similar issues don't affect you. Id make my own post if I diddnt think this one was made this some harmful rhetoric that affected groups I'm a part of.