#oh my god yeah

LIVE

livebloggingmydescentintomadness:

toss-a-coin-to-your-stan-account:

so many of the emotional geralt scenes in s2 would have been so much more emotional if he didn’t have the eyes of a fucking potoo

oh my god THAT’Swhat the contacts remind me of

i’m gonna fucking cry

rawro:

Maybe if my neck were bitten more often by a hot vampire prince I wouldn’t have so many problems

malistairesimp:

one of my fav childhood memories of w101 is when the game was relatively new, you could teleport to friends in worlds that you haven’t unlocked yet. you couldn’t go anywhere in the world but it was so much fun exploring. i never made it pay marlybone as a kid and my favorite place to explore was mooshu. i think they made it so you can’t do that anymore but i’m not sure

also going on the rainbow bridge in girzzlehelm, it twinkles as you walk on it and i would just walk up and down it in amazement

shumaicore:

im normal until i think about my hyperfixations and then it’s like Dammit! im still ill! *opens the enstars wiki*

ruisa-faa:

ruisa-faa:

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.

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.

loading