Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Twinwolf]

A friend came over today, and we played Outlast. Or rather I watched her play it since I've beaten the game. Her screams were hilarious.

[H4zardZ1]

Search literally on google, it ended up with an literally when describing. That makes the description... literally reversing over itself again and again.

I'm not seeing this when I search it.

used for emphasis or to express strong feeling while not being literally true

Now do you see that?

[Flying Dice]

Search literally on google, it ended up with an literally when describing. That makes the description... literally reversing over itself again and again.

I'm not seeing this when I search it.

used for emphasis or to express strong feeling while not being literally true

Now do you see that?

Just goes to show that the people who abuse language and try to justify it by screeching about descriptivism really don't know what they're doing, eh?

[Orange Wizard]

It's literally an abomination

[EnigmaticHat]

Search literally on google, it ended up with an literally when describing. That makes the description... literally reversing over itself again and again.

I'm not seeing this when I search it.

used for emphasis or to express strong feeling while not being literally true

Now do you see that?

Just goes to show that the people who abuse language and try to justify it by screeching about descriptivism really don't know what they're doing, eh?

I mean it still works.  Literally is a different word in that definition.  After all, you can't use a word in its own definition.

Its a weird situation, I'll give you that.  I can't think of a single other English word that would so naturally use its own homonym as part of its definition.

[i2amroy]

I mean it still works.  Literally is a different word in that definition.  After all, you can't use a word in its own definition.

Its a weird situation, I'll give you that.  I can't think of a single other English word that would so naturally use its own homonym as part of its definition.

No, it's using the actual word in it's own definition. It's just that it's permissible because it's the (and this is key) second part of the definition. Because "literally" has already been given one definition in the line before, that is:

in a literal manner or sense; exactly.

we're allowed to use that definition to help us define any further definitions of the word. It's not preferred, of course, but it is a thing that is still logically legal.

[jaked122]

--snip--
we're allowed to use that definition to help us define any further definitions of the word. It's not preferred, of course, but it is a thing that is still logically legal.

But the word "Contradiction" is in every dictionary. That means we can logically derive anything!

[SirQuiamus]

This sentence literally uses the word 'literally' in a figurative way.

[Reelya]

I just discovered Arielle Schlesinger's blog. She's the postmodernist computer "scientist" who wanted to do the post-modern post-patriarchal transhumanist programming language which doesn't feature objects (because objectification) or boolean logic (because binaries are oppressive since traditional bits can't be both on and off at the same time).

Very informative blog. I'd consider it satire, except there's way too much dry analysis and obscure postmodernist textbooks referenced.

The history of AI is built on institutions that privilege an unspoken understanding of normal, and maintain a conveniently forgetful retelling of history. Ada Lovelace is a cultural icon in computing, thought to have written the first computer program in the 1800s. When Russell and Norvig mention Lovelace in the Chapter 1 of the book Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, why do they feel compelled to mention Lord Byron? When they mention Lord Byron, how is it they forget to mention that he abandoned her and her mother? When they mention Lord Byron, why do they forget to mention that Ada’s mother hated Byron so vehemently that she forced Ada into mathematics to spite him? Why do they forget Ada had no substantial relationship with her father? It seems that no woman can enter the venerated halls of history with a dick to claim her.

(emphasis in the original. touche, Arielle! Very clever!)

Note the entire reference to Lord Byron in the textbook is "Ada Lovelace, daughter of the poet Lord Byron". Nevermind that Ada Lovelace also features prominently in biographical references to Lord Byron. Their relationship was equally tenuous in both directions, yet biographical information links them both ways. That tends to happen when two famous people are related to each other, and is nothing to do with gender. Also the main reason she had no substantive relationship with her father was that he died when she was 8. And the "just to spite him" thing ... well, he was already dead at this point so that can't really have been a thing unless the mother was insane. It's not like Lord Byron had a grudge against mathematics.

Someone save feminism from the postmodernists. They're like intellectual cancer.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Someone save feminism from the postmodernists. They're like intellectual cancer.

What an ignorant thing to say. Real feminism is, and always has been, built upon the postmodern rejection of patriarchal structuralism. That's like Women's Liberation 101. Here, read this.

[Reelya]

Scary, I've read some real ones, and it actually takes some processing to decide whether you're reading a real one or a fake one. This is a quote from one paper Arielle cited for her post-patriarchal programming language.

Haraway proposes the notion of diffraction as a metaphor for rethinking the geometry
and optics of relationality: “[F]eminist theorist Trinh Minh-ha .  .  . was looking for a way
to  figure  ‘difference’  as  a  ‘critical  difference within,’  and not as special taxonomic marks
grounding difference as apartheid. .  .  . Diffraction does not produce ‘the same’ displaced,
as reflection and refraction do. Diffraction is a mapping of interference, not of replication,
reflection, or reproduction. A diffraction pattern does not map where differences appear, but
rather maps where the effects of differences appear” (1992, 300). Haraway (1997) promotes
the notion of diffraction to a fourth semiotic category. Inspired by her suggestions for usefully
deploying  this  rich  and  fascinating  physical  phenomenon  to  think  about  differences that
matter,  I  further  elaborate  the  notion  of  diffraction  as  a  mutated critical tool of  analysis
(though not as a fourth semiotic category) in my forthcoming book (Barad forthcoming)

And this was actually a footnote, which was meant to clarify a point in the main text.

[ggamer]

Someone save feminism from the postmodernists. They're like intellectual cancer.

What an ignorant thing to say. Real feminism is, and always has been, built upon the postmodern rejection of patriarchal structuralism. That's like Women's Liberation 101. Here, read this.

look i can appreciate dry intellectualism just as much as the next guy, but when people define complex terms with more complex terms it all starts to smell like bullshit

one thing i've learned in life is that if you can't articulate your position without using terms like

wait

did i just get got

thank god i thought we were being serious

I guess the striked text still applies to madame Arielle's body of work tho

[Reelya]

I covered Arielle's latest post already. Her previous post is about how thoughts themselves are capitalist as soon as you demand that the thought has some value to do something else with. "These incognito-capitalist criticisms range from not being easy to use, to not being quick to produce" (in relation to thoughts themselves). i.e. it's an affront to free thought that we require scholars to produce theories which are comprehensible to other people. I shouldn't be surprised this coming from a post-modernist. "incognito-capitalist" is probably a more palatable version of "crypto-fascist" or somesuch.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Scary, I've read some real ones, and it actually takes some processing to decide whether you're reading a real one or a fake one. This is a quote from one paper Arielle cited for her post-patriarchal programming language.

Snip, deer god.

And this was actually a footnote, which was meant to clarify a point in the main text.

Yeah, I do a debate activity, and people just love to pick an indecipherable essay out of the millions, read it a hundred times until they alone can extract some sense from it, and then proceed to make it the center of their argumentation so that nobody can conceive of what they're dealing with in time to respond. It's..."fun". Known postmodernists and poststructuralists are one thing (for example, they like to make arguments), but the endless mountain of others is quite another. But no, that just means I only listen to old white men's postmodernism, that's not ok.

Someone save feminism from the postmodernists. They're like intellectual cancer.

What an ignorant thing to say. Real feminism is, and always has been, built upon the postmodern rejection of patriarchal structuralism. That's like Women's Liberation 101. Here, read this.

look i can appreciate dry intellectualism just as much as the next guy, but when people define complex terms with more complex terms it all starts to smell like bullshit

one thing i've learned in life is that if you can't articulate your position without using terms like

wait

did i just get got

thank god i thought we were being serious

I guess the striked text still applies to madame Arielle's body of work tho

this halloween

you have been rused by

THE SPOOKY SHITPOSTER

LW is British and doesn't believe in Skeleton Santa so I have to take over for a few days

your normal shitposting will only resume if you respond to this post with

"God fucking damnit, MSH."

HELL COMES

HEEELLL

[Bohandas]

I just discovered Arielle Schlesinger's blog. She's the postmodernist computer "scientist" who wanted to do the post-modern post-patriarchal transhumanist programming language which doesn't feature objects (because objectification) or boolean logic (because binaries are oppressive since traditional bits can't be both on and off at the same time).

Very informative blog. I'd consider it satire, except there's way too much dry analysis and obscure postmodernist textbooks referenced.

Yeah there's no way to tell whether she's a troll or an actual crazy person.