"No one can make you feel bad without your permission."
"It was nothing personal. CALM DOWN. Literally no one was thinking of you as a person when that happened, there is nothing to be upset about!!!!"
Black bear hunters in Montana are required to complete a bear identification test to obtain a black bear license. The identification program is intended to prevent the killing of grizzly bears as a result of mistaken identity.
Interested if you guys think this quiz on how well you can differentiate a black from a grizzly bear is easy or not. I got a 73, but I barely studied.
But what kind of irony is it when someone begins an article with “Flannery O’Connor warned us of the kind of empathically-correct sentimentalism that leads to things like trigger warnings” and ends it with “And the thing about literature classrooms, is reading and discussing literature without any kind of censorship is precisely what leads to empathy?”
i cannot express how much i love that woman
Can we talk about Nina Diaz solo?
I am into strawberry flavored things but not as into strawberries. I hate hate HATE raspberry flavored things but I love raspberries. I love raspberries so much. They make me feel so healthy and happy. I always want to love real strawberries more than I do, but I’m presuming that’s because of where I live?
Anyway sorry. Honestly these past few weeks I learned I hated some people I thought I might be okay with - and that was just annoying and filled me with despair.
Something that really stands out is that I can’t think of one “anti-trigger warning” academic who has acknowledged power relationships and the university structure in any significant way. Needless to say, no demand from below to above can be regarded as “censorship” (and I don’t even think in this situation anyone made any demand). But, also, I think that these academics are trying, by omission, to characterize an acknowledgment of power dynamics/critique of academics based on power dynamics as a form of neoliberal demands to “acknowledge our privileges.” This is a really disgusting conflation, because one of the reasons performance of “acknowledging our privileges” is shitty is precisely *because* it obscures and forecloses the naming and acknowledgment of structural abuses of power.
Oh my God it’s so hard to do antecedent/pronoun clarity in long text posts.
This may be a pet peeve revulsion, but something that I’ve found very disgusting about academic histrionics and victim complexes in these past few months is the following: Most of the articles I can think of written by academics do that whole “Yes I am sympathetic to trauma victims” and “Yes please let’s have a good faith discussion about this and not see each other as enemies” thing. It’s transparently manipulative, and I’m not at all surprised by this, but THEN what happens is that people reblog and repost these “so sensitive to the students and their needs BUT” articles like: “YES! Finally someone standing up against these pathetic whiners.”
And then, despite the academic who wrote the initial article claiming, in the article, all sorts of sympathy and understanding and “good faith,” the academic doesn’t take any measures to tell these people who *make fun* of trauma victims/survivors that they are radically misinterpreting their article or anything like that.
And I’m not even talking about Jock here because Jock’s article had the benefit of being really, REALLY easy to mock. There is actually a good group of people right now in Jock’s circle who have to pretend not to think that parody Twitter is funny, for example, because honestly his scholarship has always kinda transparently sucked and he’s always been kinda an emperor’s new clothes type figure.
But the whole issue of assault on university campuses, and how those assaults are actively encouraged and covered up…I dunno. I’m still kind of mad about that Higher Ed. think by E. Freeman, with that gross list about why her and that dude won’t use trigger warnings. There was one point on the list where they were like, “It’s really awful that there are so many rapes on campus, administrators should really deal with that.” No characterization or framing of campus sexual assault as an “attack on intellectualism” or an “attack on the classroom.” No call for collective action against these cover ups or mention of the complicity of professors or even of the administration.
Anyway I forget where I’m going. I just mean to say, I think, that you know you’re dealing with truly shit people when they write articles about how much they are sympathetic to people and how they desire to operate in “good faith,” and then don’t seriously object when others flat-out mock the people who are supposedly being engaged with with “understanding” and “good faith.” (This also creates a situation where anyone who reacts with anger is “venomous” - there is no correct response here but compliance).
Some dude commented on JH’s Facebook about how language police are trying to replace “desire” with “virtue.” Since I am funny and loose and watch comedies, I’m going to be frustrated all night about not being able to find the Mr. Burns quote that reminds me of.
Also: If I don’t use the exclamation point (or the “lol”), will I give away that I’m sad?
One struggle that remains difficult is the “exclamation point” vs. “no exclamation point” struggle. There are way too many things to consider. Like, will the latter make me seem not serious? Will the former make me seem TOO serious and frigid? Am I genuinely excited? Will this person feel like I am not being nice to them if I don’t use the exclamation point? Will my text have communicative flow if I don’t use the exclamation point? Am I making an enormous mistake in tone by arbitrarily placing in an exclamation point simply because a message with no exclamation point might horrify the recipient?