In a previous topic, people discussed their pet peeves, but that's not what this post is about. The idea is not to list (or rant about...) the ways in which others use language incorrectly or annoyingly, but rather to talk about our own habits and preferences both in writing and in speech.

Things like:

• How do you like to talk (complex, simple, formal, informal, brief, lengthy...), and what do you like or dislike listening to?
• Do you have certain words or phrasing patterns that you either love or avoid at all costs?
• Do you have a tendency to be overly formal? Conversely, are you often too informal, or use too much slang?
• Do you have an inner dialogue?
  • If so, how does it sound?
• Do you think exclusively in your mother tongue? If not, which situations bring up specific languages in your head?
• How do you adapt your patterns to different contexts (formal, informal, social, professional, etc)?
  • Does that come easy for you?
• Do you prefer to be addressed by specific pronouns which people often get wrong?
• Do you clearly differentiate between serious and jokeful registers?
  • Do you use phrasing and tone of voice to differentiate between the two? Does it work?
• Do you sometimes talk too much or too little?
• Do you make a lot of faux pas?

So, what are your linguistic idiosyncrasies? In what ways is your use of language particular, odd, or peculiar? Let's begin!

Reclaiming a word means stripping it of it's negative baggage and giving it either a neutral or positive meaning. The most common example is the word Queer going from a slur to a descriptive term for non cis-het people.

My personal pick would be returning the term "incel" to it's original meaning of "involuntary/involuntarily celibate" or someone who wants a relationship but doesn't have one, because the word is currently associated with the few tens of thousands of extremists who occasionally commit terrorist attacks, consider the redistribution of women reasonable and created the black-pill, but the amount of men (and realistically also women) who would consider themselves as wanting a relationship but not having one is much higher than a hundred thousand violent extremists, and if they could all describe themselves as incels, I think that would help steer the conversation about wanting a partner and not having one away from the extremists and to the much more numerous pool of mostly young people, seemingly mostly men who just want a partner and can't have one and usually mostly just feel bad about it to varying intensities. It wouldn't completely detach the term from cringe online right tropes as a lot of the dudes who can be described as incels often tend to fuel the kind of "women aren't real"/"Girls don't exist on the internet" culture that makes complaining about dating so 'lame'. (As in, the default reply is "just do basic self-improvement it'll put you ahead of most people lol".)

Another term I would reclaim if I could is the Red-pill/Blue-pill dichotomy with becoming red-pilled either being a joke about some vaguely red pill used to transition or as a shorthand for adopting leftist beliefs, mainly because the creators of The Matrix were Trans women who intended the movie to have a strong Trans subtext, and red is usually a leftist color instead of a conservative one, so becoming red-pilled meaning becoming a leftist is more intuitive in most places.

#couple
Defined as:

noun:
couple; plural noun: couples

1.
two individuals of the same sort considered together.
"a couple of girls were playing marbles"

a pair of partners in a dance or game.

MECHANICS

a pair of equal and parallel forces acting in opposite directions, and tending to cause rotation about an axis perpendicular to the plane containing them.

2.
two people who are married, engaged, or otherwise closely associated romantically or sexually.
"in three weeks the couple fell in love and became engaged"

3. INFORMAL

an indefinite small number.
"he hoped she'd be better in a couple of days"

verb: couple;

3rd person present: couples

past tense: coupled

past participle: coupled

gerund or present participle: coupling

1.
combine.

"a sense of hope is coupled with a palpable sense of loss"

join to form a pair.
"the beetles may couple up to form a pair"

2.
mate or have sexual intercourse.
"as middle-class youth grew more tolerant of sex, they started to couple more often"

#Discourse of the use of the word/phrase in this particular case

You

"how many would you like?"

Them

"just a couple."

When someone requests 'a couple of...' I respond with something similar to: 'How many do you want specifically?', which leads to the discourse of, 'A couple is two, a few is >2, several is <x' and so on.

I agree with the first two clearly stated definitions of 'couple', but in the informal use of a couple (eg. a depiction of a quantity) is not specifically two...nor is 'a few' three. How many specifically is several..?

I understand the semantics within the conversation. But, the expectation of understanding that two, and only two, is implied in the use of the phrase 'a couple' in a request; is ambiguously stating what one party desires. I'm the asshole now, just tell me how many you want.

And now...your thoughts, please.

The English word 'crane' means a large bird or a giant lever-thing for moving heavy stuff. The Hungarian word 'daru' means both of the same things.

English and Hungarian are about as unrelated as languages get ... and yet, I keep bumping into parallels like that.

Thoughts, anyone?

Has the sentence "the masked men entered the store" changed meaning post the pandemic. I think it feels less ominous than perhaps it used to. Now the words could imply "responsible men that wear masks in accordance with guidelines entered a store" where it would previously almost certainly imply "robbers entered the store". Since I'm not a native speaker I'm curious if this is just in my head or a more general thing? Are there other similar statements that has change?

I wouldn't say Tildes is wholly uninterested in philosophy, that is certainly not the case. You're a smart bunch full of intellectual curiosity!

I have been making an effort to share more philosophy articles on ~humanities for some time now. They always get a few votes, but discussion is not as common. This is in no way a complaint about our users, philosophy is often highly specific and long-form, and it is hard to predict if a long article will eventually pay off for you.

Generally, philosophy posts that are related to technology, computer science, consciousness/AI, and, to a lesser degree, social change, attract more attention. But there are not as many of those (and I'm personally interested in other stuff too...).

As I said, the purpose of this post is not to complain. I believe the lack of participation in certain topics reflects the size of our community, our most common interests, and our repertoire.

With that in my mind, I would like to know how could I better engage our community in discussions about philosophy. Apart from the themes I mentioned, what are you interested in or curious about?

I could make an effort to include a short introduction or conversation starter on every post, but I'm not sure what is the sentiment regarding that (would that be considered/labeled as noise?). Besides, I'm not a philosopher or anything of the sort, just a layman with a lot of philosophy websites on my feed. So my guess is as good as everyone else's.

It would be awesome if we had a ~humanities.philosophy someday, but I wonder if that is realistic at all...

Intermittently, for the past 15 years or so, logic has been an interest of mine. Back then I had trouble understanding exactly why certain things people said sounded so right/wrong, and how could I come up with proper responses.

Among others, in this time I've read one great book on informal logic (which I lost, unfortunately), quite a few articles, and studied the first chapters of the stupendous Gary Hardegree's symbolic logic.

Even though I love the subject, it is hard to sustain motivation alone. I wish to acquire a firmer grasp of logic and its applications to philosophy. Hence the suggestion of forming a study group.

It is my understanding that most Tilderinos are in STEM, especially areas surrounding computer science. So I anticipate that many users have an understanding of logic that greatly surpasses my own. Because of that, for some, a philosophical logic study group may seem too elementary to be of any value. Others may find it interesting to approach logic from a philosophical point of view.

In any case, the idea is to start from scratch. Besides the ability to read and write in the English language, no previous knowledge is required. No mathematics either.

I have two initial proposals.

1. An Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments

This one is ideal for a light, relaxed approach.

This awesome book describes 19 common logical fallacies using accessible language, with clear examples and suggestive illustrations. Not very technical, and a lot of it is well-known territory if you have an interest in logic. One chapter for each fallacy, each chapter is one page long. A great conversation starter.

2. Symbolic Logic: A First Course, by Gary Hardegree

I would choose this one myself. Hardegree is a wonderful teacher.

This book is one of the best teaching materials I have ever known, and surprisingly superior even to paid alternatives. A more proper introduction to logic. Hardegree is an excellent teacher, introducing concepts with precision in accessible language. The progression is smooth, you never feel that the exercises are either too easy or too hard. And there are plenty of exercises (with answers!) which are great for self-study.

We could start with either one of these books and follow from there. Just meeting once a week (or maybe biweekly) to discuss the chapter or chapter section we studied in that period.

I understand a lot of people like to do that kind of stuff on Discord, so that's a possibility.

When learning something new, often available resources are lacking in some departments - whether they're missing information, poorly written, or tedious and dry. But occasionally, some content just stands out as above and beyond the rest, serving to not only make the learning process enjoyable but also to kindle interest in further exploration. What is that for you?

This could encompass everything from computer programming to literary criticism, and could be in the form of a website, book, video tutorial, or the like.

I've been thinking a good bit about gender-neutral language lately, and I've been making an effort to eliminate unnecessarily gendered language from my day-to-day speech. However, there are a few sticking points for me that I am having a hard time with finding my way around. One of the most difficult for me, having been brought up in the deep south and still living there, are honorifics like "sir" and "ma'am". I use these when addressing pretty much anyone, and it's a habit I'm having a hard time breaking. It's got me thinking about whether there are any good alternatives that would feel respectful of the person I'm addressing while not sticking out too much. If that's not an option (and I suspect it would be asking too much) then what are your ideal alternatives, either neologisms, borrowed from other languages, or just repurposed words that are in current use?

Examples of usage that I would love to replace:
"Yes, sir/No, ma'am"
"Excuse me, sir/ma'am"
"Mr./Mrs./Ms." (I use this less often but still catch myself at times. I also think this one has the best alternative currently in use, with Mx. catching on in some places)

Also, if this question is missing the mark or disrespectful in any way, please let me know. I'm still learning!

Judith Butler has some influential pieces that talk about performative or performativity.

I see online lots of people seem to think there's no difference between "performance" and "performative".

So, in philosophy, what do theyean when they say performative?

Whenever i talk about my views in politics people say i'm a lefty.

I want to understand what is this boogeyman called communism that will "take over the world". I live in Brazil and, for the average american, our free health care system is communism. Even some brazilians think it's bad, which baffles me because it helps a lot of people, myself included. Everyone who needs cancer treatment go through it, it's one of the best in the world (for this particular disease at least) and affordable private health care plans won't cover expensive cancer treatment here.

People here often talk about communism being bad, but what really is communism?

I grabbed the Communist Manifesto and Why Marx Was Right to read, but did not start yet since i have to finish the book i'm currently reading.

I never tried to understand these things because they are all over the place and it's a little boring to me, so i'll ask some basic questions here before i go further in this endeavour.

Please, try to answer without anger and pointing fingers. Because every time i read about these topic online, there is fight and everyone says different things and accusations runs rampant.

1. What exactly is communism in layman terms? Because for me it's all over the place. Everything that seems to care about people is put into the communist basket, but a lot of people call it a dictatorship. ELI5.

2. Why almost every average citizen (americans and brazilians at least) says it's bad?

3. My best friend is a school teacher and is a marxist. He says Joe Biden is still a terrible choice, but the only alternative to Trump and he is not a communist at all, but i keep hearing people call him a commie. WTF is he? If possible, ELI5 what he is and what he stands for.

4. Why there is right x left and no place for something in between? Is there a need to everything be one side or another to work? There is no middle ground in politics? Grabbing aspects from the left and from the right and co-existing in the same government is a problem?

5. A lot of people really think letting companies run wild and free is good. That the market will regulate itself. I think this is naive, because even now they do some really shady stuff. Just look at Nestle.
   Why people say that and is there some truth to this that i can't see? Is regulating companies a communist thing?

6. People say that communism didn't work when implemented and the other side says that it was not really communism. What is the truth here? It didn't work? if not, why it didn't? If it was not true communism, what it was and why it was not true communism?

7. Is there a country that is communist today?

8. What books about the left and the right i should read? Nothing too dense.

It's something I've struggled for a long time to do in text conversations. People will often think I'm mad when talking in a way that I think is perfectly normal or that I'm a brick wall while discussing disagreements and well, that can't be fun. I often have to reassure certain people that it's not the case.

Sometimes I try to show how I'm feeling through emotions or more "fluffy" language but I feel like that's too excessive and feels kinda fake to me?

It's also something I've more recently struggled with because I'm trying to write personally on my blog and I'm not exactly sure how to convey my feelings other than stating it like a robot like "This makes me mad" or "That's depressing" or "It makes me feel great".

It feels off to me and maybe it's just a me problem but I think that's also because I write the same way I speak and so, it just sounds strange.

I don't know, this post is rambly and I've been wanting to write something like this in the last few days but I just have to push enter at some point.

I'm a sucker for languages and lately I've been wanting to learn a sign language (not specificallly ASL as I put in the title, I'm open to learning any local flavour).

And well, with COVID and everything, I figure this may be a good opportunity to do this with someone else and have someone to talk to. So, is there anyone on Tildes who would be willing to have regular informal video chats, where we talk and you try to teach me as we go? (And of course I can accommodate by text if needed)

No hard commitment, this can just be something we try once and if it's boring for either of us we don't have to continue :) But I'm hoping it'll be fun enough to be a regular thing!

PS. I can teach you French in return if you are interested!

A friend of mine asked me for good videos on anthropology. I'm at a complete loss. I have several good youtube channels for history, but finding anthropology-related content is surprisingly difficult.

Any recommendations?

I'd like to learn Hebrew, and my understanding is that the OT vocabulary is very limited, though creative word use, particularly in Hebrew poetry is a challenge to understand.

I don't know enough about the distinctions between Ancient and modern Hebrew to be certain, but I believe they are significant enough that Duolingo won't be a good fit, particularly as definitions of words in ancient Hebrew aren't always agreed upon.

Are there any recommendations? I have the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and a couple other books, since I thought they would be good references, but a lot of the word formations are dependent on pronunciation, and reading descriptions of how to pronounce words isn't doing it for me.

I saw this post. And it reminded me of a hobby I haven't paid much attention to for a while. Apparently there are at least two people who are moderately fluent at Toki Pona, soon to be joined by a third.
In the meantime, I was wondering what conlangs you find to be interesting or unique?

Edit - Also, do you speak any conlangs?

Inspired by this comment, and thinking about how we today look back on (for example) segregation, or the treatment of homosexuals through the last 100 years.
In the year 2120 what do you think human society will look back on and be disgusted to think about?

The big one for me I think will be the treatment of animals, and not just battery farming, but straight up growing them for slaughter: food, clothes, lab-testing, etc. With the nascent industry of 3d-printed/lab-grown meats gaining traction, as well as vegan and vegetarianism on the rise through much of the West, it's not hard to imagine our great-grandchildren being horrified at the thought of their ancestors raising animals just to kill them.

Can be posters, advertisements, videos/films and maybe national/revolutionary anthems/songs.

My favorites so far are:

"Is Colorado in america?" (Basically a US flag with various constitutional rights being
written as violated in the US flag's stripes in Colorado, including the 2nd amendment.)

"Daisy" (Lyndon B. Johnson campaign attack ad, implying that if you do not vote for LBJ, we would have nuclear war.)

Honorary mentions for: Wake up, by the Lincoln project, which has a very similar "these are the stakes" tune for 2020. Mourning in America and We will vote are pretty good too.

Not leaving the house much these days (due to social distancing and also insane heat in NYC right now) means I've got some time to kill that I'd like to spend productively.

I took MIT 6.00.2x: Introduction to Computational Thinking and Data Science a few years back when I was refreshing my Python skills. I think it's been updated a bit since then. It was a high quality course and I enjoyed it, though there are so many Python-related courses these days, I can't guarantee it's the best.

I'm currently taking:

1. Model Thinking on Coursera from the University of Michigan. I don't know where I saw this recommended (maybe on Tildes or Hacker News?) but it's quite good so far. Scott Page teaches about how to use various models (mental models, computational ones, etc.) for breaking down and analyzing various problems and systems. I've only just started but I quite like it.

2. Testing and Monitoring Machine Learning Model Deployments on Udemy. Taking this along with a few coworkers since it's relevant to what I do. Only just starting but appears to be quite good and works through a well-documented example project on Github.

I've also come across a few that seem like they might be good courses for the future:

• Bayesian Methods for Hackers
• Probalistic graphical models on Coursera (3-part sequence, not free)
• Computational probability and inference

Now your turn: what have you taken? What did you like or not like, and why? What do you want to take?

I love humanities and philosophy in particular. I'm also a layman in both counts. Nevertheless, sometimes I wanna post some personal/informal essays on these subjects, but I have no idea if my fellow Tilderinos have any interest in those at all.

So here are as some subjects I have in mind, please tell if you're interested in of those or anything relatead:

• The Philosohy of Love
• Possibile World Semantics
• Philosophical zombies
• Albert Camus
• The Kyoto School
• The Paradox of Fiction
• The Paradox of Suspense
• Aristotle's Rhetoric
• Informal Logic
• John Austin
• Speech Acts
• Fallacies

The idea is not to make anything resemble a professional take of these subjects, but rather informal commentaries that might serve as starting points for interesting discussions.

Sadly, I don' have the knowledge or disposition to comment on subjects that are typically popular on Tildes, such as those more directedly related to computer science and artificial intelligence.

In terms of reference, I won't go much beyond the refereed links, which are reasonably exhaustive for the purposes of this project. The periodicity will be once every two months (counting starts tomorrow), with the first post that comes in next Septemper 16, 2020 (Monday). 60 days from now. Because of that, it wil be probably long form (no quarantees!).

This would come in addition to my project of going through each informal fallacies in the Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments, but I don't have any concrete plans for that now.

In any case, these things take time and effort, and I'll only then if and only if you guys and girls demonstrate interest. So please be vocal!

I'll choose the next subject of discussion base on public interest.

Admittedly that's 90 years of history but I've always wondered about what was the politics of the US back then, because I've never really known about them.

The parts I'm most interested in are:

Why did it take until 1832 for the state legislatures to reach a consensus on how to elect people to the electoral college? I know states' rights are a big theme in US politics, but it seems really strange that it would take them 55 years to figure out how to pick the president, even if early on, that role was a lot less powerful.

Why were there so many parties before the US settled on the Democratic and Republican parties (although they have changed plentifully thanks to the US's 2-party political system where everyone needs to bundle up into 2 large coalitions or risk turning the US into a 1-party state.)

Why did they switch so often? From my count there are:

4 main parties being:

The Democratic-Republicans vs the federalists

The Whigs and National Republicans vs the (Jacksonian) Democrats

3 3rd parties being:

The anti-masonic party

The know nothing party/cult according to wiki apparently

The free soil/anti-slavery party

(Also in 1820 there was effectively no election, in 1824, 4 people of the same party all ran for president at once, in 1836 the same thing happened and 4 Whigs ran at once, but with Democratic opposition and 3 actually won votes while one just coasted off south Carolina. Why?)

Why were there so many large parties and what were all these parties about?

I tend to watch AlternateHistoryHub, WhatIfAlthist and occasionally Monsieur Z (but less so since the guy somehow got a far-right audience) so I've always been interested in the idea of alternate history.

However, there's more than that. There are books and writers (I.E Harry turtledove), 3 subreddits (r/historywhatif, r/historicalwhatif and r/alternatehistory), many games (HOI I, II, III and IV, civ 1-6, Vicky 1-3, etc), a forum and according to Wikipedia, people have been speculating about history since before the year 0.

So what do you think of it?

With all the news about President Trump declaring "antifa" a domestic terror organisation, I heard a few local newsreaders saying this word on television. And their pronunciation of this word surprised me.

I've been mentally pronouncing this word as "AN-ti-fa", with the emphasis on the first syllable and a short vowel sound in the second syllable.

They pronounced it as "an-TEE-fa", with the emphasis on the second syllable, with a long vowel sound in that syllable.

My pronunciation is influenced by knowing that "antifa" is short for "anti-fascist". I don't know of any word with the prefix "anti-" where the second syllable is emphasised and the "i" sound is lengthened. Usually, the emphasis in "anti-" words is placed on the first syllable: "AN-ti-bac-TE-ri-al"; "AN-ti-TE-rro-rism"; "AN-ti-gen"; "AN-ti-bo-dy". So, I naturally emphasised the first syllable in "antifa": "AN-ti-fah".

When I heard the newsreaders saying "an-TEE-fa", it makes the word sound like an imported word/name from Spanish or Portuguese or Italian.

Is there a common pronunciation for this word? How do you pronounce it?

My personal picks would be the whole of Chinese history between the opium wars and communist rule (or the century of humiliation as it is called), and most especially the warlord era, given that this was effectively how European powers, Japan and many internal revolutionaries managed to bring down the greatest economy in the world to civil war and then total warlordism for 40 years. For a vague concept, my pick would be the great divergence, the period where the US and European nations rose above the rest of the world and became the predominant world powers and colonized most of it, along with the many potential causes of this.

I recently finished "Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind" by Shunryu Suzuki and was deeply moved. I've meditated sporadically over the years and dabbled in various Buddhist traditions yet never have I been so taken with an approach as I was after reading this. If there is anybody out there practicing Sōtō Zen would you be able to recommend anything to read next?

I'm starting school this coming Monday with the intent on getting a degree in horticulture. My classes include botany and plant identification. Something I struggle with is knowing how to pronounce words with Latin roots. Not knowing how to pronounce words makes it harder to commit words to memory, which of course makes it more difficult to recall. For example the words Leguminosae / Fabaceae - I know they are legumes, but have no idea how to pronounce it. It makes reading difficult because I find myself skimming. Does anyone have any resources that can help me pronounce the words I am reading.

I've been creating new languages for a few years now. I like to do it in my spare time, which becomes smaller and smaller each year, mostly from proto-languages that already exist. I'm currently working on a Slavic language in Belarus and Ukraine for fun. Anyone else into this stuff or wanna know more about conlanging in general?

This is something I was thinking about. When I read about the end of the second world war, the thing which surprises me the most is how easily the German population accepted that their government really committed such atrocities (Yes, I used Holocaust in the title, but I mean any genocide commited).

I was wondering how it might go down in our current culture with the emergence of Fake News and alternative "facts"; our post-fact culture. Would they more readily dismiss it as a photoshopped image? Would the impact be mitigated by the meme-ification of genocide?

(To a mod: The title should say « more or less »)

In Turkey, where I live, almost all universities restrict access to staff and students (only their own students if not a graduate student); the only exception I can find is the Koç University where paid membership is open to public. I've researched in the past and found that major universities around the world---i.e. Italy, France, UK, US; selection factor being the languages I can read---seem to allow the public to access in one way or another (article, in Turkish, with results). But I wonder how accurate my reading is with the reality, and thus I'm asking this question.

So, as a plain citizen w/o any current affiliation to any educational institutions, can you access university libraries where you live? Does it matter if you have certain diplomas or affiliations? How easy it is?

It is Wednesday, my dudes! So why not have some good old foreign-language practice? As an
experiment, let's try just that. Start a thread in a language you would like to practice or teach,
or reply to an existing one. E.g.

## German / Deutsch

Hier sprechen wir Deutsch! Wie geht es Ihnen?

If you want to fix someone's grammar and also reply to them in the same message, I would recommend
using a horizontal ruler with “* * *”. E.g.:

I think “sich” should be “ihm”.

* * *

Es tut mir Leid, dass es ihm so schlecht geht.

Hi! I've recently graduated as a BA of Italian philology. But I am interested in pursuing my further studies and academical career in linguistics, studying language contact and linguistic strata in particular. I was wondering if anybody took a similar path and am interested in advice from such folks and also any other humanists here. I'm studying some online material and will try to partecipate in some local university's linguistics BA as a visiting student (I guess it's called a freemover in English) if I can find an affordable option. Also I have found out recommended reading material from local universities I'm interested in and some papers about my field. Do you know of any useful resources for making the transition smoother? What has been you experience if you've taken a similar path to your studies? Thanks in advance!

Consider three examples:

1. I am a farmer. I have a piece of land that can grow just enough potatoes to feed me. I work this land, I gather potatoes, ad nauseam.

2. I am a farmer, but this time I have ten times the amount of land. I hire four workers and also work myself. Together we grow enough potatoes to feed all of us, and we also have a surplus. I sell this surplus potato for ¤5000. I am a greedy man, so I take ¤3000 for myself and give ¤500 to each of my workers.

3. The situation is the same as in 2, but this time I am a just man. I share the money equally, so everyone including myself gets ¤1000.

It seems to me that in the first case the land can be considered personal property, since there is no exploitation and no surplus is generated. In the second example the land is clearly a piece of private property, because I use it to exploit other people, taking most of the profit for myself.

But what about the third example? On one hand, the profit is distributed equally, so there is technically no exploitation, right? On the other hand, I am alienated from the workers, because I still have the power to fire one of them (or all of them if I know I can replace them) or to distribute goods unfairly (even if I don't do that). What is the Marxist point of view here?

pretty straightforward ask. i have some basic, rusty Spanish (on and off learning) and a bit of Esperanto to my name (currently learning) but not much else

eventually i want to speak French conversationally since my boyfriend can and i think it'd be neat to converse with him in more than English, but that's a long term goal.

One of my biggest hobbies and passions over the last 10 or 15 years has been essentially all of the above. I'm not the smartest or the most well-read lady out there by any means but I enjoy exploring the more shadowy realms of discourse. There's lots and lots of dross but occasionally a nugget of something magnificent, and over the years it's eroded away my original scientific materialist atheism completely and my thinking now is more animist, panpsychist, deist. I've spent years off and on experimenting with (actual, not stage) magic, and though I was never super committed to the full ceremonial experience like others I've seen, it's become a part of how I think.

So I was wondering if there's any here that don't fit into the typical scientific materialist box in one form or another. And if so, what're you reading or experimenting with right now?

Currently I'm reading through Conversations with God and it's persuaded me to start practicing loving-kindness meditation. I've only been at that a few days but I'm interested to see what impact it has on my daily life. It's definitely true that up until these past few days I've never actively focused on trying to love myself and others, which kind of surprises me when I think about it. But that sort of thing isn't really something I see emphasized in our culture or in my own little circle.

How about you?

I'm interested in patterns and culture. I think it's a fascinating topic from many perspectives. Mathematically there are many tools for pattern analysis and formation, but at the same time philosophically our minds try to make things fit into patterns generally (maybe because it requires more energy to remember a whole thing than a set of rules that describe the thing). A mathematical example of cases where order arises from pure disorder (or maximum entropy) would be Ramsey theory.

I'd like to discuss the cultural influence on our pattern analysis/synthesis, but also explore a bit what is a pattern, whether everything is a pattern or nothing is a pattern, whether patterns are interesting in themselves or not, etc.

I was wondering if anyone has recommendations for readings in this area, or if anyone has an opinion on it. I know of many works regarding a single pattern (for example the different theories of linguistics, the different theories of music, the different theories of cooking... you get the idea) but I've never seen a meta-perspective on why are we so interested on patterns and whether our approach actually makes sense.

Thanks!

There was a recent thread on ~talk about which linguistics habits people find annoying, and much to my horror, I have most of those which were mentioned. After thinking about it a little more, I realized that a lot of these habits were picked up from the media I consume and the people I interact with. I also feel that this problem is exacerbated by my poor knowledge of English grammar.

While I was taught grammar at an elementary level in school, I didn't quite grok it back then, and mostly relied on my instinct, as to what "sounded" right. I have since forgotten most of what I had learnt, and my instinct is failing me - my grammar is atrocious, my punctuation is terrible and I only have auto-correct to thank for my spelling.

I understand that English, like other languages, is constantly evolving. What is wrong now might be right tomorrow. However, I believe that this is no excuse for my shortcomings as there is merit speaking and writing in accordance with what is considered correct in the present day.

I would like to learn English from "first principles", and would greatly appreciate if some users could suggest some books/resources which could help me (bonus points for resources pertaining to British English). Any other suggestions would also be great.

Thanks, and have a nice day.

A series of gender neutral alternatives for the third person singular pronouns (he/she/it) have been proposed throughout the recent years (and maybe decades). I wonder the preferences of fellow users here in that regard. So I'd be glad if you could answer the questions in the title, and maybe elaborate a bit on the reasons of your preference. I'm both interested in this generally, and it could be useful as a means to help me practice quantitative linguistic variation (obviously this would hardly be scientifically usable source of data for actual real research so I'm not asking this for that purposes). I'll add my preference as a comment.

I feel like I'm a bit slow, though I'm gaining practice. I cannot read two moderate or long-ish papers in one day. I guess part of that reason is that the field I'm mostly reading in is a field I'm new to, though in accordance with that what I'm reading often is kindo-of introductory material (linguistics, and Linguistics Handbook ed. Aronoff, 2017). A chapter is around the size of an average paper (around 25-30 pages). Another factor may be that I'm not a native speaker of English, but I think I do have a quite decent command of it especially when reading, enough to read through ~60 A4 pages in five-six hours, but I just can't do it.

So I wonder if I'm too slow or maybe exaggerating it a bit? How long does it take for you, and how many can you read, without skimming/skipping, in a "day"?

I read some things about the philosophy and I'd really like to go deeper into it, but the book is so hard for me to read! I can't make sense of much of what I'm reading, maybe it's the vocabulary I'm not sure... Is there a more accessible book about absurdism?

Not sure if anyone will remember by now, but a few months ago I made a philosophical discussion thread in ~talk since a group like ~humanities didn't exist yet. I was super excited by all of the great discussion that I was able to join in, and now that we have ~humanities (thanks @Deimos!), I'm wondering how people would feel about some threads for more general discussion of various questions as opposed to the mostly link-based discussion that's gone on here so far.

Would anyone else be interested in that sort of thing? I'd be more than happy to start a few threads up over the next few days if people are interested.

I like thinking about alternative history. There are people like Harry Turtledove who write extensive alternative histories based on whether the South's main general's war plans got to the Northern armies' general in time for the Battle of Antietam. For me there's something appealing about thinking back through complex events in world history and finding critical moments and critical decisions that might have gone another way. I'm also quite taken with the idea that some historical events end up in hindsight looking like perfect storms, where a number of complex variables make the world we now know, but where any one of those variables would have produced a massively different result.

But I'm less interested in thinking about waving a magic wand to change the weather of some day or to change facts on the ground or morale or something like that. What I'm most interested in are situations where someone's individual decision might have dramatically altered the world. Can you identify one decision that happened in the past that you would have that person making it change? How might that set us up in a different reality?

A small note on housekeeping before I let you go. I know this might be a type of topic that walks the fence between something designed for ~talk and something best suited in ~humanities. I think of this as kind of an experiment to see how best to handle topics that straddle two different tildes.

A long time ago I had noticed a trend developing on reddit where people were starting to preface their comments with: "I for one". It's pretty insignificant, which is why I never made a post about it at the time. Since then, its use seems to have spread significantly on the site and I've seen it a bit here as well.

It makes sense to use the phrase when talking about or quoting another person to help separate their opinions from your own. The weird thing is many people now seem to use it when its not ambiguous that the comment is their own opinion. I was under the assumption that the default position should be that the comment is the opinion of the person that posted it.

For example:

"I for one, prefer dark chocolate over milk chocolate."

Is the same as:

"I prefer dark chocolate over milk chocolate."

There's nothing wrong with using the phrase, it just reads like someone trying to pad out an essay for school.

Have you noticed people using the phrase on other sites? Is it a phenomenon more specific to reddit?
Do you use the phrase yourself? If you do, what is your thought process when typing it out?

In light of @Deimos mentioning that we have a lot of "favorite" topics going around, how about something a little meatier?

I've seen it a few times already around threads that someone uses the word "guy" to refer to a poster and the response is "I'm not a guy". I'm not trying to invalidate this stance, but rather make this argument in the same way I argued for a singular "they". Consider the following:

• the plural form, "you guys" is already neutered. I can walk up to a group of women and ask "How're you guys doing?" and it doesn't draw any ire
• we've similarly neutered "dude" in both the singular and plural, but it's especially casual and almost familiar
• "gal" sounds like something out of the forties, "girl" is diminutive, and "person" is clinical / formal
• we don't have another common, non-gendered, non-specific term that fits the "sounds right" criteria and fits in the environment like the one we have (wherein users are getting to know each other and don't know exactly how to address one another).

I realize that this is probably masculine-normative and therefore problematic, but my main goal here is to stimulate discussion on a meatier topic (gender) without having it be an incredibly serious topic.

[EDIT]

I want to clarify a few things, as this reads a lot more trolly than it did 6 hours ago.

generalizing "guy" is a sexist idea because it attempts to make the masculine the generic (what I called "masculine-normativity" above). However, there isn't a term that adequately replaces "guy" but is neutered (@Algernon_Asimov brought up that "dude" fits, but is as more casual than "guy" than "person" is more formal). [Edit edit: I'm an idiot. They pointed out that "dude" as I had defined it earlier in my post would work just as well, but they did not agree that it has been neutered]

Instead of bringing this up as purely a matter of diction, I set myself up as an antagonist to see what would happen. And for this I apologize.

That said, I feel like there is some good discussion here and do not want to call making the thread a mistake. More that mistakes were made in the manner of its posting.