I had a professor once who said a phrase that really stuck with me about the way that we teach (at least, in all of the education that I had): “Education is the process of diminishing deception.”

What they meant by that was that we teach things in a relative level of simplicity, and as you learn more and more, the information becomes increasingly complex, showing some of the rules and ideas that we taught previously were actually incorrect generalizations.

This is the case from history, to the English language, to mathematics and the hard sciences. Surely you can think of examples in your own mind: the definition of a species, the causes of the Protestant Reformation, “I before E…”, Supply and Demand, etc.

But like the thing is that relatively rarely do people teaching actually like make sure to note that many of the things that they are teaching are oversimplifications. 

I think it’s like become an important pedagogical issue because, increasingly, you have people using a relatively rudimentary knowledge gained from the part of their education that would hypothetically be complicated and re-taught, and using that as showing their intellectual authority.

This could be known as the “I took a semester of pyschology” or “open a biology book!” effect.

So in an era where people seem to take their slight and oversimplified knowledge of a subject to give them just as much (and sometimes more!) credibility on a subject than even people with a much more in depth scholarship (due to being overconfident for personal and/or demographic reasons), is it wise to continue teaching on a model that oversimplifies information if we cannot count on that oversimplification not being used as a barrier to further knowledge?


Timeline of the Far Future.

While scientific predictions of the future can never be absolutely certain, present understanding in various fields allows for the prediction of far future events, if only in the broadest strokes. These fields include astrophysics, which has revealed how planets and stars form, interact, and die; particle physics, which has revealed how matter behaves at the smallest scales; evolutionary biology, which predicts how life will evolve over time; and plate tectonics, which shows how continents shift over millennia.

All projections of the future of the Earth, the Solar System, and the Universe must account for the second law of thermodynamics, which states that entropy, or a loss of the energy available to do work, must increase over time. Stars eventually must exhaust their supply of hydrogen fuel and burn out. Close encounters gravitationally fling planets from their star systems, and star systems from galaxies.

Eventually, matter itself is expected to come under the influence of radioactive decay, as even the most stable materials break apart into subatomic particles. Current data suggest that the universe has a flat geometry (or very close to flat), and thus, will not collapse in on itself after a finite time, and the infinite future potentially allows for the occurrence of a number of massively improbable events, such as the formation of a Boltzmann brain. This timeline coverS events from roughly eight thousand years from now to the furthest reaches of future time. A number of alternate future events are listed to account for questions still unresolved, such as whether humans will become extinct, whether protons decay, or whether Earth will survive the Sun’s expansion into a red giant.

PDF Books Masterpost 2

Hey guys, this is my second masterpost with links to full books in pdf format. If any of the links stop working, send me a message and I will fix them. There’s a good mix here…feminist theory, postcolonial theory, poetry, theology, literary criticism…a few books about intimate partner violence/trauma. Enjoy! 

Link to part 1

Kathy Acker–Empire of the Senseless 

Tom Andrews–The Hemophiliacs Motorcycle: Poems (1994)

Ashcroft, Griffiths, Tiffin–The Post-Colonial Studies Reader 

Ashcroft, Griffiths, Tiffin–Post-Colonial Studies: The Key Concepts (Second Edition)

Lundy Bancroft–Why Does He Do That?

Morris Beja and David Norris–Joyce in the Hibernian Metropolis: Essays

Simone de Beauvoir—The Second Sex

Peter Berry–Beginning Theory: An Introduction to Cultural and Literary Theory

Maurice Blanchot—Friendship

Maurice Blanchot–Thomas the Obscure

Pierre Bourdieu–Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste

Judith Butler and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak–Who Sings the Nation State?: Language, Politics, Belonging

Judith Butler–Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (1990)

Judith Butler–Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of Sex

Rosi Braidotti–Transpositions: Nomadic Ethics

David Carter—Literary Theory

Anne Carson–Decreation

Anne Carson–Red Doc>

Jonathan Culler–The Pursuit of Signs

Tony Crowley–Standard English and the Politicalization of Language, Second Edition

Tony Crowley–Politics of Language in Ireland: 1366-1922

Derrida–On Touching Jean-Luc Nancy

Derrida–Work of Mourning 



Diane di Prima–Revolutionary Letters

Marguerite Duras–Malady of Death

Emile Durkheim–The Elementary Forms of Religious Life 

Ed. Craig Dworkin and Kenneth Goldsmith–Against Expression: An Anthology of Conceptual Writing 

Terry Eagleton–Marxist Literary Theory (ed. Terry Eagleton)

Terry Eagleton–Literary Theory: An Introduction

Marian Eide–-Ethical Joyce 

Michel Foucault–Discipline and Punish: The Birth of Prisons 

Michel Foucault–The History of Sexuality: Volume I

Michel Foucault–Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason

Michel Foucault–Psychiatric Power: Lectures at the College de France, 1973-74

Frantz Fanon–The Wretched of the Earth

Frantz Fanon–Black Skin/White Masks

Frantz Fanon–A Dying Colonialism 

Frantz Fanon–Towards the African Revolution 

Henry Leroy Finch–Simone Weil and the Intellect of Grace

Elizabeth Grosz & Elspeth Probyn—Sexy Bodies: The Strange Carnalities of Feminism

Donna J. Haraway—Simians, Cyborgs and Women: the Reinvention of Nature

Donna Haraway–The Haraway Reade

Leslie Heywood–Dedication to Hunger: The Anorexic Aesthetic in Modern Culture

bell hooks–We Real Cool: Black Men and Musculinity

bell hooks–All About Love

bell hooks–Black Looks: Race and Representation

bell hooks–Teaching to Transgress

bell hooks—Where We Stand: Class Matters 

bell hooks–Feminism Is For Everybody

Fredric Jameson–POSTMODERNISM, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism 

Susanna Kaysen–Girl Interrupted 

Chris Kraus and Sylvere Lotinger–Hatred of Capitalism: A Semiotexte Reader

Tim Kendall–The Oxford Handbook of British and Irish War Poetry

Benita Parry–Postcolonial Studies: A Materialist Crique

Fernando Pessoa–A Little Larger Than the Entire Universe: Selected Poems (2006)

Ezra Pound–The Cantos

Clarice Lispector–The Passion According to G.H

Agnes Martin–Writings

Jean-Luc Nancy—Being Singular Plural 

Maggie Nelson–Bluets

Maria Tymoczko–The Irish Ulysses

Tiqqun–Preliminary Materials for a Theory of the Young Girl  

Rosenbloom, Williams, and Watkins– Life After Trauma

Sara Ruhl–Eurydice

Jean-Paul Sarte–Marxism & Existentialism

Crispin Sartwell–Political Aesthetics

Andrew Scull–Madness: A Very Short Introduction

DENNIS WASKUL and Phillip Vannini–Body/Embodiment Symbolic Interaction and the Sociology of the Body

Max Weber–Economy and Society 

Simone Weil—Waiting for God

Simone Weil–The First and Last Notebooks

Kurt H. Wolff–The Sociology of George Simmel 

Slavoj Zizek–The Parallax View 

Slavoj Zizek–How To Read Lacan 

Guys, I just heard a theory that maybe this is all a dream from redhead. and like he is going to wake up .

I mean it would make sense because why would He tian suddenly blow the cover his been keeping to kiss Mo GuanShan. And in front of the whole school is just seemed so surreal don’t you think so?

If this is a dream it might confirm that Mo GuanShan is indeed attracted to him. But I really want the kiss to be true.


Jian Yi also had daydreams of Zhan before he did anything with him. They showed his repressed feelings. Which  Mo GuanShan also seems to have for He tian.

anonymous asked:

something Rebecca Sugar said sounds like it's hinting towards a Jasper redemption (I couldn't find where she said this "Jasper is very different from Peridot and Lapis. Unlike them she has a deep hate for herself because of her origins on Earth. She is determined to never be weak or vulnerable. So at the point when she's the lowest, there is no way she'd ever accept help, because she doesn't believe she deserves it." ;(

o h my god i saw that and i almost cried


(via https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX5TdTAGBE4)

theoceanknight  asked:

(Public) hey, i've wanted to ask you this for awhile now: considering her line in Message Received ("I don't care about potential or resources."), the context of the scene when it was said, and the revelations of Homeworld's situation right now, how does that affect your reading of YD? Because you're the only person I've come across so far who wants to explore her beyond "irredeemable nutjob irrational dictator" and you always have interesting thoughts on her. :o

So something I think is very interesting about YD that seems to be frequently overlooked or not discussed about her character is gem placement! Or maybe it sticks out to me in particular because of the fact that, the way she was described in It Could Have Been Great- an ostensible paragon of logic- I would’ve had her pegged immediately as a forehead gem.

Keep reading

Sorry, this is long, but it all fits so well together! I’ll cut it as short as possible. I think I’ve just figured out who killed Charlotte and Jessica, who is the second child, and who might be behind A.D!

At first, I think there was a Jessica/Mary twin switch like the Ali/Courtney switch in the novels, when the girls were fourteen. They hated each other. My guess is, it happened while Jessica was babysitting Teddy Carver. An example: Jessica realized Teddy Carver had died. She panicked and called Mary to come and stay with a whiny Teddy, so she could meet Matt Brooks. Surprisingly, Mary agreed, so Jessica called her parents and the Carver’s to inform them that Mary was now staying with Teddy. However, Mary never came. Instead she went to see Matt, posing as Jessica. The Carver’s returned early and freaked out about Teddy’s death. Because of the call, they thought Jessica was Mary. Jessica insisted on who she really was, but because Matt confirmed that “Jessica” was with him, the Carver’s didn’t believe her. (And her parents didn’t either, which means they can’t tell their daughter’s apart, but that’s exactly how it happened it the books so…). In fact, Mary played Jessica’s role so well, that everyone thought the real Jessica had snapped because of the baby’s tragic death, and tried to pin it on her sister. Jessica as Mary was sent to Radley, because of what happened to Teddy.

Mary and Jessica never switched back, before “Mary” killed the fake Jessica for stealing and ruining her life. Before that, “Jessica” married Kenneth and had Jason and Ali, while “Mary” was stuck at Radley and had two (possible more) babies: Charlotte and the baby Dr. Cochran delivered. I think that baby was a girl and (while I’m personally no fan of this), that baby was Bethany Young. Bethany was adopted by the Young family. Because “Jessica” (might) have felt a twinge of guilt for what she did to her twin (or she just pitied the kids), she adopted Charlotte and later sought out Bethany, which resulted in an affair with Mr. Young. She never adopted Bethany, because Bethany was already adopted, when she found out about her. Bethany caught wind of the affair and was sent to Radley for her violent outbursts. Because “Jessica” had joined the board, she could continue to watch over her and Charlotte. Charlotte and Bethany might, or might have not have known they are related. I’m not guessing on this one.

Bethany later had contact with “Mary” (who was possible at Radley at this time, too). She found out “Mary” was her birth mother, and then “Mary” told her the whole truth about “Jessica” and the twin switch. Bethany started to hate “Jessica” and her family by extension. She drew pictures of her aunt with devil horns, she drew another one with the word LIAR all over “Jessica’s” face, because she was lying about being the real Jessica. When “Jessica” took Bethany to the horse stables, and insisted that Bethany called her “Aunt Jessie”, Bethany threw the bucket at her. Because she knew that “Jessica” was really Mary and had ruined her mom’s life. Bethany snuck out that night to get revenge for her mom and kill “Jessica”. (Why else would she show up at the DiLaurentis’ in the first place?) However, Mona, confusing her for Ali and killed her before she could get to the house. Bethany’s drawings prove that she knew “Jessica” well enough to know what her house looks like. Unusual for an allegedly totally random kid.
“Mary” killed Charlotte, because she confused her for Ali. Her own daughter had died, so she wanted to kill her sister’s only daughter in revenge. Ali and Charlotte both wore a red sweater that night at the church. “Jessica” saw Ali go inside, but not come out. When she went in and saw Charlotte from behind, she hit her over the head, before realizing she wasn’t actually Ali. Charlotte’s corpse was thrown from the bell tower to make it look like suicide.

I think A.D’ is “Mary’s” third child. Dr. Cochran said, he delivered “two of her babies”, which implies there might be more. Now remember the dollhouse family. There was a brunette Mom (brunette like “Mary”, a dad who doesn’t resemble Kenneth, a boy, who doesn’t resemble Jason and a little blond girl.) The dolls are Charlotte’s true family. She is the blond girl, because she envisioned herself as a girl. The dark haired boy is her brother and they have a small age gap. Because the kids are still so young, and Charlotte and Bethany were born ca. five years apart, Bethany isn’t there yet. That’s why the doll woman is holding her stomach like she’s pregnant. Charlotte knew there was a third baby, but she might not have known it was Bethany. Eventually, I think the doll brother is A.D. PLL loves to pull a switcheroo, so I guess we’ll find out the “second” baby was a girl and then the Liars will assume she is A.D. But in the end, they’ll find out that the baby was Bethany, who’s dead, and the brother will reveal himself as “Another Drake” (A.D) or something. He is looking for Charlotte’s killer, not knowing it’s his mom. He was also the one who called Hannah as “Archer.” We all know it wasn’t really Archer, tho.
Bonus: Look at Bethany’s drawings again. A boy is being dragged away from her, who could be her brother. It’s not Toby and Marion, because Bethany killed Marion as a child and she never knew Toby existed. Based purely on the doll boy’s looks (which could have changed of course), prime candidates for A.D would be Ezra, Wren, Marco or Holbrook - age wise.

Large ass theory

Okay. Where to start?

Okay, so most believers of Ianthony want to believe that Ian and Anthony are in a current relationship, right?

Well I’m here to break the chain.

I, for one, think that Ian’s relationship with Pam is 100% legit, with no one or anything else involved. Only their love for each other.

I think that’s why we’ve been getting a lot more of jealous Anthony recently (not that there was none before; there just seems to be more in more recent times, specifically since Pam and Ian started hanging out before eventually getting together). I also think that’s why Anthony never confirmed anything with Miel- because they’re NOT DATING.

Have you seen Anthony’s recent Vines? The ones that really make you question his sexuality? I think he’s gay. I honestly do. He used to be totally closed minded to the idea of “Ianthony”, and I believe this is because he didn’t want it to be true, because that would make him gay. Nowadays, they don’t talk about it all. They avoid it completely. This means that Anthony is trying to avoid coming out, I think… As if he’s trying not to say something that might give things away. If he’s gay, that means he wouldn’t be in a relationship with Miel… Because she’s a female lol.

Anyway, so Anthony has a crush on Ian yada yada. But… What about Ian liking Anthony? Well… We can’t be sure. Ian is very good at hiding his emotions, and right now, it seems as though Ian isn’t as into Anthony as Anthony is to Ian. I can imagine Anthony laying in his bed and daydreaming about his crush for hours lol…

So yeah. Interpret that how you will. Maybe Ianthony was a thing but Ian is over it. Maybe it never was and Anthony is dying to ask him out. We’ll never know until SOMEBODY comes out and tells us what’s going on… *Ahem* ANTHONY *Ahem*

Anyway, that’s been my theory and I hope you liked it and that it made any sense. Don’t hate or anything… I’m too young to be hated XD

koolerestkid  asked:

You tend to have good Gem location theories. What do you think of Eyeball and her namesake Gem location?

I don’t know if we’ve seen enough of Eyeball to talk too much about her gem placement, except for the fact that, like Jasper, her gem is focused on one of her senses- it’s on her head- and she does seem to be a bit cognitively inclined, in the sense that she seems to largely internalize and think about things quietly, and doesn’t always express them outwards, which sets her at odds with, say, Army, Leggy, and ‘our’ Ruby who are much more extroverted about their thoughts and feelings and have gem placements located out on their limbs.

I will say, I think it’s interesting that at this point Eyeball at least claims to be the personal witness to Rose shattering Pink Diamond. Thus, there is a great deal of narrative significance on what she has seen.

This could be compared to Centipeetle, who also has an eye-mounted gem- in her case, a gem that is her eye- where Centi is our current major insight into the origins of corruption- what she witnessed

So it seems like narratively there might be a theme of eye gems being witnesses to something. Which… might say something interesting about Blue Diamond’s two guards seen in The Answer… because just by their silhouettes, it would seem that they were both eye gems.

anonymous asked:

Concerning the whole "in a world without oppression women might not exist" thing, does that mean that "women" as a category only exists as a signifier of who is subject to misogyny? Or am I missing something? I've never heard this theory before.

Basically the idea is that the process of gender goes something like this:

Choose a set of traits, draw a line down the middle, and assign people at birth into these groups/classes. Ignore or punish anyone who doesn’t fit one (and make that punishment a way to keep everyone acting within one or the other), and organize all of society based on those two groups. On top of that, one of the semi-arbitrarily decided Organizational Groups is inferior to the other, and only exists to serve the superior/‘default’ group.

So like, grouping people as ‘men’ and 'women’ only really happens so that society can be organized in ways that are based on the exploitation of one of those groups (here: women). That is built into the division necessarily, in this view.

Therefore, the solution would be to create a society where people don’t even conceptualize people into those groups anymore. This is basically an Andrea Dworkin style radical feminist argument.

ask-the-dlhoes  asked:

What if the Mukami's or impure blood vampires in general was able to kill Karl Heinz. Does that mean they become the Vampire King?

I’m not sure about this one. I kind of think about it this way: If an assassin kills the king does the assassin become the king? They don’t, succession still goes towards the next in line unless the assassin wiped out the king’s entire family and was say working for someone who had the ability to take leadership. (For example: The Russian Revolution. The entire royal family was assassinated but none of the people that shot the Czar and his family took over the leadership of Russia, it went to Lenin, whom likely had some part to play in organizing the deaths of the royal family.)

However, if one of the Mukami brothers was to kill Karl, they do technically have a claim to the throne as his adopted sons. That being said, it is most likely that rulership would be passed down to a legitimate successor before the illegitimate. If one of the Mukami boys killed Karlheinz followed by all of his legitimate sons than theoretically they could become the next Vampire King. That being said, I think the only one of the Mukami brothers that would have any interest in this title would be Ruki.

Ruruka is a bitch I love but...

there is something more to it SPOILERS AHEAD

now i think of it
why is Ruruka’s ng code this?
i cant believe it’s only because to keep the game going
if that was the thing, they wouldnt make bandai’s thing something like that
so what if ruruka really thinks she is not worthy any firneds or anything because she cant do everything
just like seiko can do everything
so she wanted to keep everyone with her by drugging candies
and that’s why now mastemind wants her to use this ability again
because she doesnt want anyone to leave her

[omphaloskeptic gender slurry, with emphasis on the skeptic; internalized cissexism probably]

i feel like if i were anyone else i’d tell myself, if you don’t wanna be a girl (whatever that means), or have a girl name or use girl pronouns, you don’t have to! there’s no cutoff for yr gender feelings being significant enough to count!

…i want to say ‘100% cis ppl aren’t usually alienated by gender’ except like, honestly i think they are sometimes, i think femininity and masculinity are both kinda artificial coercive constructions (even though they’re constructions that work to varying degrees for a bunch of ppl and i don’t mean to shit on that, i’m so fucking uninterested in implying that e.g. trans women are reifying the gender binary or whatever that terf argument is) and cis ppl see that too sometimes, so it isn’t really evidence i can quite believe in. so i’m careful not to make too-strong claims about my gender.

but even so, i feel like if i want ppl not to gender me i get to ask for that, probably? like, it doesn’t have to be about feeling ~unable to abide yr assigned gender another second~, it can be about feeling better when you position yrself at an offset from the thing—can be an exploratory enthusiastic reaching-for, as much as a miserable trapped fleeing-from (though there’s some of the latter too).

ugh i dunno. i think i have this idea that if i feel like a person who’s intimately familiar with the strictures of the girl box and has navigated said structures with success ever, i can’t possibly have a case of the genders “"bad enough”“ to justify trying to get myself out of the box?

but like, in my ideal world you’d get to position yourself wherever felt good to you, without having to earn/validate that positioning by tugging so hard at yr gender assignment that the rubber band finally snaps entirely. like, say i feel in certain senses adjacent to/experienced with girlhood, but also hella alienated by it: i want it to be totally neutral whether i define that position as, like, ~girl sharp~ or else the synonymous ~boy flat~ (or something not limited by those two end points), like, in a truly neutral world it wouldn’t be a question of judging whether i’m pushing hard enough against the sides of the box to break it, it’d be whether i wanna be in it or out of it or (auto)straddle it, and screw having to justify my desire to redraw the lines—

basically philosophically i do think we gotta say ppl can draw whatever lines they want, their position doesn’t have to be legible or coherent to others, because otherwise where do you stop? what feelings are serious enough to count? and if i gotta defend my tender pastel position with my tiny adorable rapier like reepicheep so more valid folks have a margin of safety, then i guess that at least is a praxis i can get behind—

sorry, this is an unintelligible slurry of feelings about the thing, i tried to explain what i was getting at a bunch of ways and i don’t think any of them worked! but anyway ugh how do i stop telling myself i’m full of shit all the time, is the question! (if i manage to answer that one it’ll sort out a lot of other arenas too, tbh.)

anonymous asked:

PD is RQ theories aside, I hope that if it isn't true, it turns out that shattering PD wasn't the best course of action/could have been avoided. Loads of people seem to want it that Rose just couldn't avoid it or that PD deserved it, but I feel like it would be an easy out if it was all about Rose. I dislike the idea that PD is just a genocidal dictator. That's not the type of show SU is.

Right, and that’s one of the reasons why I’m so incredibly skeptical that it went down the way it was described. Because it’s all so neat and tidy at this point, that Pink was the Bad Guy who was taken out to protect Earth, with no opportunity for her to learn, grow, and change, or try to make amends. I wouldn’t doubt it in a different show, but for one like SU that is so carefully methodically subversive, I can’t help but be skeptical that this one fairly major plot point is just. completely straightforwards.



So we get a general idea that the butterfly’s symbolizes negative thoughts.

When Garnet sings

“Here comes a thought”

Sapphire looks like she’s thinking while Ruby chases after the butterfly.

Right after that two butterfly’s appear in front of Sapphire. Then more and more started appear. She pushes her hair out of her eye.


Then it cuts to Ruby yelling at the butterfly and breaks into tears thinking about how she can lose Sapphire.

Sapphire has the same thought but also many other horrible possibilities since she’s looking at every possibly future that she can lose Ruby..

She then covers her eyes.