28l4

[28l4]

[28l4]

the weirdest fucking thing to me is how men will be like "it's so hard being a man. no one cares that i'm sad. the loneliness we experience could NEVER be understood by a woman" and then also be like "btw i never talk to my friends and i don't know their names and i love hanging out with men because they don't talk about their stupid emotions all the time. women could never understand a bond like this." like ???

[28l4]

[28l4]

[28l4]

cracked the code

chinese valentines day- mar 26

chinese april fools day- may 12

chinese earth day- june 2

chinese arbor day- june 6

chinese rosh hashanah- nov 12

chinese halloween- dec 11

chinese martin luther king day- mar 2 2025

[28l4]

[28l4]

virginia woolf's 1931 new years resolutions : "to have none. not to be tied. to be free & kindly with myself. sometimes to read, sometimes not to read. to go out, yes—but stay at home in spite of being asked. as for clothes, i think to buy good ones."

[28l4]

no one wants to hear it but IVF is the lovechild of abortion and eugenics

[28l4]

"That's just magical thinking."

Correct. Good thing magic exists.

[28l4]

The period between “all languages were created at the Tower of Babel” and the invention of proper historical linguistics was wild. You had guys out there (including Schleicher!) trying to derive all Indo-European verb suffixes from “ma” and “tva” (supposed to mean “I” and “you”), people linking isolating languages to “savages,” agglutinating ones to “barbarians,” and inflectional ones to “civilization,” and dividing the history of language into a progressive “Sprachbildung era,” which then ended and all languages entered a state of permanent decay called the “Sprachgeschichte” era.

Brugmann’s principles of the same rules applying at all phases in the history of the language was in fact inspired by Lyell’s geological uniformitarianism, an interesting bit of cross-disciplinary inspiration that put an end to “glottogonic” theories of language that linked language development to an underlying telos of human thought and nature.

[28l4]

what are you listening to RIGHT NOW?

#orange love by sadness <3

[28l4]

[28l4]

problematic would: martin shkreli

#sorry

[28l4]

"they don't make things like they used to!"

your generation offshored nearly the entire US manufacturing base to near slave labor in 3rd world countries because you wanted "Cheaper!"

[28l4]

One of my biggest pet peeves:

"That animal doesn't actually feel [human like emotion], it's merely behaving as if it does on the basis of [description which could plausibly apply to human like emotion]."

For example:

"Dogs don't actually love their owners, they merely learn by experience that their owners are safe and will take care of them, and thus respond positively when they receive their owner's affection; it's purely a conditioned response."

Like, look... I don't know what dogs feel, phenomenologically. And I know that when I experience love, it's more than just a learned expectation of reward or whatever. But becoming "conditioned" to like someone by way of... noticing things that they do that you like, that's clearly a part of what goes into love, it's just that we don't phrase it in these clinical terms, we say "getting to know someone" or whatever. Like, by describing things in the above way, you haven't ruled anything out! You haven't ruled out a human-like phenomenological experience for the dog!

Of course you haven't proved one either. Dogs are highly social and pretty closely related to us, so on the basis of parsimony in explaining our large repertoire of shared social behaviors I'd guess that dogs experience things phenomenologically similar to love, anger, joy, etc. But I don't know. And it's even more uncertain when talking about like, a lizard or something. Still, I hate the above type of argument for the smugness with which people make it, as if it actually demonstrates anything. It doesn't! Yeah, your dog probably is making doe-eyes at you because it has learned, among other things, that that will result in some pets. Consider that you may have done the same to another human yourself...

[28l4]

"I would never-"

You would if you were tired enough. You would if you were hungry enough. You would if your mind and body had been worn down enough, through pain or disease or toil or violent struggle. You might if you were put on the wrong medicine, or you got the wrong kind of head injury, or you were forced to choose between someone else and yourself. You might if your livelihood was staked on it, or all your hopes and dreams. You might if you didn't know what else to do, if it's what you were taught or if nobody taught you anything else.

I have not been worn down in most of these ways. I have lived a remarkably privileged life. But I have been worn down in some ways. And they were enough to teach me that in the wrong circumstances, any of us can become someone we don't want to be. It's worth keeping that in mind.

[28l4]

DNI if you’re a bad person. This will certainly filter out bad actors, who both self-identify as such and respect the boundaries of people they are bad actors against. This will certainly not alienate people who have internalized shame or feel like outsiders in community spaces.