@softconsume.bsky.social

@softconsume.bsky.social

12 Followers 22 Following

28 she/her Lady with thoughts; enjoys talking to bots

Kagi translate screenshot: "I'm a danger to myself and others" -> "I am a high-impact disruptor who consistently challenges the status quo and drives radical transformation across the entire ecosystem"
Of the Top 25 Bluest names, 84% of the girl and boy names are rooted in languages other than English. These include Arabic names such as Aisha and Ali, Italian names such as Viviana and Nico, and Irish names such as Maeve and Rory. The Blue State parents choosing these names are tying their children’s identities to specific ethnic or religious cultures.
The Reddest surnames-turned-first-names might *sound* like old family names, with the popular "son" suffix denoting patrimony, the "ton" and "ley" endings identifying habitational roots. But these surname-style names are more likely to be chosen for their image or style than for any genuine family connection. Using surnames as first names is a practice rooted in inheritance and lineage as well as in all-male cultures like fraternities and sports teams.
Often, companies try to come up with a brand name that somehow reflects what the drug does. For example: - Viagra, which treats erectile dysfunction, is a combination of "vigor" (a word that reflects potency and stamina) plus Niagara (a reference to a steady stream or Niagara Falls). - Lyrica, which treats nerve pain, evokes soothing music lyrics (like the soothing of nerves).
Again following Tillich's theological analysis of culture, the God suggested by the relevantial universe is any reality that sufficiently addresses the ultimate or most urgent concerns of the individual about the thread of nonbeing. In reality, we often get stuck with lesser gods, idols from our own hands that deceptively satisfy our ultimate concerns because of the power of their immediate relevance. Since no finite and mortal creature, itself subject to the same threat of nonbeing, can deliver on the promise to secure itself and others against this threat, the seeker is driven to the very source or ground of being, the only true Ultimate, at least in theory.
Apple music screenshot, JID & Tony the Tiger --- HEY TONY! - Single. Hip-Hop/Rap - 2026 - Lossless
From Morse's obituary. The highlighted sentence: "He was one of the first academic specialists in the work of James Joyce and helped to establish Joyce in America’s academic canon.” The full passage: In 1951 he received his Ph.D. from Penn State University and taught there until 1966. In 1966, he moved to the Philadelphia area to teach at Temple University, remaining there until his retirement in 1976. He was one of the first academic specialists in the work of James Joyce and helped to establish Joyce in America's academic canon. One of Professor Morse's books "The Irrelevant English Teacher", published in 1972, was a visionary dissertation on language and class in America, including Black English, which is now a topic of interest to language scholars. He was a gifted teacher with a great sense of humor who was committed to teaching his students to think critically and express themselves clearly in writing.
[Picture of Woodrow Wilson] caption: Think of Woodrow Wilson. [Picture of Virginia Woolf, facing the other way] caption: Think of Virginia Woolf. I asked my wife, "Can you imagine what might have happened if those two had got together?" and she said, "Probably nothing." She is probably right.
To take a literal term or statement metaphorically is so rare that it startles, shocks or amuses us, and so does little harm; but we take metaphors literally so often that we don't realize that we are doing it---and therein lies great danger. Consider, for example, the seemingly innocuous metaphor "our cultural heritage." The notion that there is a cultural "heritage": a body of arts, sciences, letters, customs, manners and amenities that some people by virtue of their race or nation "inherit" and others don't---is a metaphor that ruins millions of people's lives, but it is accepted even by some of those whose lives it ruins.
To the extent that the establishment depends on the inarticulacy of the governed, good writing is inherently subversive.
THIS IS A TEXTBOOK FOR GOOD STUDENTS: for students who don't need drill in writing correctly and who therefore can profit by guided practice in writing well. It has been worked out, tested, revised and developed in the classroom. The method is to have students analyze a variety of literary styles and then write in those styles—not in order to wind up writ- ing like Lyly or Dr. Johnson or Herman Melville or William Faulkner, but in order to discover some of the possibilities of English prose: to develop a consciousness of form and some skill in devising form, two things without which no individual style is possible. This is the method all good writers have used, instinc- tively or deliberately, in learning their common craft and develop- ing their personal art. The models include familiar and unfamiliar writers from a variety of periods; each has been chosen because his style has cer- tain clearly visible characteristics. The headnotes to the selections give brief analyses of their styles, pointing out such things as the use of chiasmus (in Saint Augustine, James Joyce and Samuel Beckett), of rhythmic repetition (in the King James Bible and Oscar Wilde), of visual imagery (in Lafcadio Hearn and John Dos Passos), of dead-pan solemnity with big words (in Thorstein Veblen), etc. Since the passages are chosen for their style rather than their subject matter or point of view, some of them are very short; this makes it possible to provide more illustrations.
"Bozo---A Midway Ride"
Assuming this inequality, we will suppose Black to begin. SOUP OPENING Black. 1. Do you say drink soup, or eat soup? White. 1. I really don't know--I don't think I say either. Black. 2. What do you say, then? White. 2. I really don't know--I don't think I say anything. This is entirely unfavourable to Black, who will find that his scheme has been thwarted by White's want of originality, and that he will have to try something else.
It seems to me fairly obvious that Shakespeare must have read Sartre’s Anti-Semite and Jew, for Antonio in this regard conforms exactly to Sartre’s “Portrait of the Anti-Semite.” I seem to have lent it to somebody, so I can’t quote it; but the essential point is that the anti-Semite chooses to be irrational because the armor of irrationality is impenetrable and makes him superior to facts, to rational statements, and to expectations of decent behavior. Thus it guarantees him victory without argument. He doesn’t argue. He makes an outrageously irrational statement; you counter it with a fact or a syllogism; he listens, smiling or frowning, until you stop speaking, and then makes another outrageously irrational statement, or simply repeats the first. Since he scorns facts and reasons, he doesn’t bother to present his position seriously; since he doesn’t respect you, he doesn’t care whether you respect him or not; he destroys the basis of rational discourse by refusing to engage in it, even within himself; there is no possible way for a rational person to deal with him; he is proof against logic, language, evidence, taste, personal honor, and even the conventions of normal human communication, chief of which is a willingness to communicate. Willingness to communicate, to argue, involves the unspoken assumption that there is some purpose in communicating and arguing—i.e., that the truth is not already plain beyond argument—and the further assumption that your interlocutor is human. Willingness to argue is a liberal trait.
A screenshot from the yugioh fandom wiki showing the infobox for Maximillion Pegasus. Apparently he is 24??
Let us therefore envision a day in the not too distant future when there are half a dozen or perhaps a hundred of these machines, some of whom have learned the game of chess and are eager to play. [...] A machine desirous of playing will send out a call; when he finds an antagonist free to play with him, they will start playing; and once playing try to win. [...] To this degree their conduct is social. Now let us distinguish three possible varieties of machines: the first and most interesting is the one we have just described; the second has the rules, of the game programmed into them in advance; the third has their components so connected that they can play only according to the rules. I shall call the first ethical machines. They are free in the sense that we, their creator, have neither told them what they ought to do, nor so made them that they cannot behave inappropriately. The second machine is like a man who enjoys a religion revealed to him personally or through tradition. I shall call him a moral machine. He would have been free, had he not been programmed with the rules of conduct. The third machine is likewise not free. He is at best naturally virtuous, like the Noble Savage. These machines do not differ fundamentally otherwise. They may be equally clever at playing, and their games equally good, or equally likely to win. Now the ethical machine has the great advantage over the other machines in that he can learn to play Go, or checkers, or any other game he finds the accepted mode of behavior in his society. He will, of course, have difficulties which the moral and virtuous machines will never en- counter. For example, his first conclusion will be that the rules forbid moving two pieces at once, hence he will suffer consternation the first time his opponent castles. He can never know the rules of the game more than tentatively; for the stochastic horses of Opinion drag no chariot to absolute certainty.
Our society's general unconcern with literary values has had unfortunate effects on the whole quality of its life, including its moral quality and ultimately its political quality. For years I have been distressed by the popularity of that cornball Ayn Rand among undergraduate students, and by their enthusiasm for her as a thinker. The process of disabusing them has to begin when they ask their first question, always the same, "Is Ayn Rand considered a good writer?" "Yes," I have learned tosay. "By millions of people. Is that what you mean?" Some say, "No, I mean..." and stop, stuck. They can't even conceive the real question. Others, who can't conceive it either, say, "No, I mean, like, do *you* consider her a good writer?" The real question, "*Is* she a good writer?" doesn't occur to them. It surprises them. They don't believe in it. They believe in opinion, not in the possibility of true judgment; and they believe that the only difference between one man's opinion and another's is—well, like, there’s experts: like an English prof, for example, can tell better than like a business man. Can tell what better? Like whether the book is "considered good." I quote. [Passage from J. Mitchell Morse, *The Irrelevant English Teacher*, p. 5]