Install Theme

hunterstheorem:

nostalgebraist:

We can see the relative scarcity of wealthy cryonicists from the fact that cryonics hasn’t attracted adventuresses. If young, attractive women on the make thought they could meet a lot of lonely men with money at cryonics gatherings, they would have shown up by now. Instead, in the real world, cryonics acts as “female Kryptonite.”

Uh…I think this proves too much? I don’t see gold-diggers at CppCon, or Google tech meetups, or…

It was an out-of-context quote – I quoted it in part because of that problem (and in part because of the word “adventuress” in a modern context, etc.)

(via hunterstheorem)

nightpool replied to your post “nightpool replied to your post “at night, I saw many…”
Right, that makes a lot of sense. It’s definitely one of the best #quotes I’ve ever seen. Did any of the forum end up on the internet archive?

Good idea, but nope – the only thing that ended up there was a non-functional login page.

Incidentally, I looked at the original post again and noticed for the first time that it contains three distinct alphabetized lists, which have discernibly different properties.  The first one contains more injokes and niche gaming stuff, while the second is a more “normie” list of interests that still includes some gaming stuff.  On that spectrum, the third goes even further in the direction of the first, and is also much shorter.  Individually, they look very much like lists of LiveJournal interests – the alphabetization, the unifying theme of “interesting things,” the combination of more generic stuff that can be searched and quirky stuff that distinguishes the user as a person.  However, they’d all have to be LJ interest lists in the same very distinct and uncommon style.  Maybe three different lists used by the same person at different points in time?

nightpool replied to your post “at night, I saw many things……………#finalfight, =w=, accentuating the…”

what is this from? its almost impossible to google

It’s a post from a now-deleted forum I used to visit in high school, which I had saved for posterity in a text file for noteworthy quotes and info.  IIRC that was the entire post, but there was at least some contextual justification (it was in some forum area where weird shitposting was expected, and many items in the list were injokes, things that the forum was interested in, or things in the same rough cultural sphere)

nightpool replied to your post “The authors of this book are to be defined as follows: indecent and…”
Source?

“How to Read Donald Duck” (PDF).

isakgrozny asked: WHAT IS THAT QUOTE FROM also why can't i reply to your posts??

It’s from this site, which I found when searching for something about Ray Blanchard and can’t really make head or tail of (ETA: transmisogyny cw for that link, also general “bizarre discourse about trans issues” cw)

(part of why i found it funny was the presumably unintentional SU resonance, what with fusion and Beach City)

I think the reply thing is because I follow you at your other blog but not at this one (although I could have sworn I followed you at this one, and just have [re-?] followed … )

rangi42:

nostalgebraist:

In 1960s Britain, people did not kidnap and murder children for fun.

Try putting the emphasis on different words.

In 1960s Britain, people did not kidnap and murder children for fun.

In 1960s Britain, people did not kidnap and murder children for fun. 

In 1960s Britain, people did not kidnap and murder children for fun.

(via rangi42)

shlevy:

nostalgebraist:

What. then, do the symbols dy and dx represent? Marx answered this question by means of a dialectical analysis of what happens in mathematics in the crossing over from algebra to a differential calculus.

Source?

“Marx, Peano and Differentials” by Hubert Kennedy, about this thing Karl Marx wrote which I never knew about until this morning

(via shlevy)

psybersecurity-blog asked: what's going on with the latest #quote? any idea?

The site it’s from is clearly some sort of search engine optimization thing – it has a pages for various phrases that seem like common search terms, all linking to related pages, and there’s an ad at the top so it makes money when people click a link to it.  The source material for the text is public domain books (H. Rider Haggard and Paul H. Hayne came up when I Googled specific bits).

I don’t want to track it down right now but a while ago I quoted text from a similar site, meant to come up in searches for specific book titles plus “free download” (there are tons of these ones).  I think the algorithm might be the same, something that combines random snippets of public domain books with a given phrase or phrases.  It often sounds kind of poetic or haunting, which makes me wonder if someone made the algorithm that way on purpose.

(Especially since it seems like a pretty bad choice here?  You can usually tell these sites in a Google search because the text is incoherent even in the little snippet Google gives you before you click.  Naively, it’d seem better to use longer stretches of text from each source, surround the keywords with boilerplate “helpful website” text rather than visibly archaic prose, etc.  But there may be SEO explanations here that are beyond my ken)

One of those tumblr culture things I can’t stand is when there’s a opinion expressed in an unusual/distinctive writing style, and people who disagree with it reblog it to say things like “what does this even mean” or “is this in English” or the like

(When people do “tag yourself, I’m the X” for posts they disagree with it often has the same implications, or it seems that way to me)

Sometimes people really don’t understand a post, but that’s clearly not what’s going on here, because these would be unaccountably dickish responses to a post you didn’t understand and felt no hostility towards.  So it’s a way of expressing disagreement that focuses on the fact that the person phrased their opinion in a weird or hyperbolic or unpolished or poetry-over-clarity way

But me, I just love all of the different styles that people write in, even the hyperbolic ones that make you roll your eyes, even the pretentious ones, even the ones that are just plain bad, because even in bad prose there’s often enjoyable variety, some way of fumbling about with the English language that you’ve never seen before

I guess my quotes tag might look sort of like the “what does this even mean” type stuff, but the spirit in which I do it is the opposite and I hope that’s apparent – I like reading weird stuff, new stuff, bad stuff, all kinds of stuff, I actively seek it out

jollityfarm asked: I recommend Adam Kotsko's 'Creepiness' as a source for future #quotes. I don't agree with all the specious neo-Freudian stuff the author uses, but there are also some good philosophical points to be made. And some quotations that are, out of context, very strange.

Looks interesting (and promising for #quotes), thanks for the tip!