#categorization

[morphimus]

why did you tag that horse video with #chordate? the organizational system that implies fascinates me

[catherinadodson1976blog]

[winters-on-the-wing]

In your latest post about regulus (asking why people like him) someone told you to check the anti regulus tag and you expressed confusion, because you never heard about the tag.

so like...I don't know if you're still confused? Because you have to use "anti (character)" tags when you're posting (character) critical content. People who love (character) can filter the tag out, that way they wouldn't have to see that type of content.

(it's fandom etiquette, also there are anti (ship) tags as well, if you don't like Jegulus or something else)

So when you answered that anon ask about Severus with criticism under only the "Severus Snape" tag without the anti Severus tag, I'm wondering if you realize this was going to come across as attack? Because it's entering Severus fan spaces, bypassing the filter?

Which means Severus fans will respond to you...hence why you're getting attacked?

Did you mean to start the argument? Or was that you not knowing how tags work? It's fine if you didn't know btw, this whole thing is just confusing me.

- 🎀

hey i'm gonna try to be nice here but this is sort of getting on my nerves.

this whole thing is confusing me so much.

i made a post about severus snape. so i tagged severus snape. because severus snape is mentioned in the post. that's how you categorize. if a book talks about cooking, you put it in the cooking section. regardless of favor, that's how you categorize. for example, people write books about thomas jefferson. one book may talk about the good things thomas jefferson did, and another may talk about the bad things thomas jefferson did. regardless of this favor or lack of favor, both books will be categorized by the topic being thomas jefferson. i don't understand why it isn't the same way here?

i love a great many fictional characters, and when i see a critique of them, i read it carefully, and then i either respond to it with my opinion, make my own post discussing my opinion, or i scroll past it. and it's great! i got to see someone else's opinion, and regardless of whether or not i agree with it, i've learned a new perspective on a character i love. why wouldn't people want the same? don't people want to learn everything about their favorite characters? don't people want rich and diverse perspectives on worlds that they adore?

besides, i think the notion that i "asked to be attacked" by posting and tagging snape is simply ridiculous. it's like me saying "i hate bread because it tastes bad and it has a funky texture." and then someone responding with "you are so stupid for hating bread. bread has all of these benefits. you're reductionist and simple for hating bread". like i didn't ask for those insults at all! all i said was that i hated bread! it would be one thing if i said "everyone who likes bread is disgusting and slimy and will never get married". but i didn't say that. i just said that i hated bread.

also if you know me (which you don't, so it is fine), then you know how i feel about censorship. i refuse to engage in censorship of any kind unless it has to do with shielding children from danger. and this is not shielding children from danger. it's having a differing opinion from my fellow man, which is one of the largest stepping stones in the pond of humanity. i refuse to hide my opinion behind an "anti" tag when someone reading it can simply stop reading it. i find the notion of trying to avoid any nuance or anything that pops your ignorant little internet bubble absolutely ridiculous and i refuse to contribute to that culture.

do i like that snape defenders are up my ass and targeting my intelligence and being horrifically rude to me for expressing an opinion? no! i despise it wholeheartedly. but at the same time, it's an engagement, a discourse, a conversation with my fellow man in which i learn more about the world. like for example, i learned that there hasn't been a single snape defender i've talked to about snape who is actually mature and decently kind. and if i had to choose between hiding the post and getting no rude replies or showing the post and getting rude replies but also an interesting perspective on something that can be interpreted in many different ways, then i'll choose the latter every time.

i have thick skin, i can take a bit of internet harassment, though i won't hesitate to complain about it, because again, it is unwarranted!

not to be rude, but i personally don't care what fandom etiquette is. i don't have to do anything. i don't care that everyone else is doing it. i'm going to do things my way, and if people don't like it, they can block me and stay in their bubbles.

[addictivecontradiction]

The ballad of Buster Scruggs, 2018

[moonlit-tulip]

A Taxonomy of Sequels

There are at least three very different types of stories which all get tossed together under the category 'sequel'. This causes confusion.

The first type is the serialized continuation of a larger story which had been incomplete. Book one ended on a cliffhanger, or left behind unresolved mysteries, or suchlike; book two picks up from there. That sort of thing. This is fundamentally an artifact of publishing, not particularly different from how webnovels often release one chapter at a time.

The second type is the forced continuation of an already-complete story, saying "wait, look, there's more!" despite the narrative having already tied off its loose threads. Most famously, this is where a lot of movie sequels sit: there was a movie originally designed as a standalone story, it was popular, therefore the studio wants to make it not be a standalone story any more because it has fans who will predictably pay money for more movies about the same characters/world/etc. But one also sees the same pattern not-too-rarely in novels, games, and so forth. Often, but not always, sequels of this sort will try to hit many of the same narrative and thematic beats as the original, in order to try to appeal to fans of the original.

The third type is the new separate story, with its own plot and themes and narrative arc and so forth, which happens to share its characters and/or setting with a previous finished story and/or to be written under the assumption that those who consume it will have preexisting familiarity with said story. This is the relation between Bavitz's Fargo and Chicago, between ebi-hime's It gets so lonely here and The end of an obsession, between Toby Fox's Undertale and Deltarune (...probably), between Tolkien's The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, et cetera.

These are all basically-solidly-reasonable sorts of story to exist. (I tend to expect lower quality from sequels of the second sort than from those of the first and third sorts, by default, but they still can be and have been done very well, and not even particularly rarely.) But they're each pretty substantially different from one another, and I think that running them together under the unifying term 'sequel' can obscure that difference in counterproductive fashion.

I don't currently have any better terms to offer, unfortunately. But I think it could be a valuable social good to either locate or invent, and then to popularize, some such terms.

[imkeepinit]

[whats-in-a-sentence]

The valence concept not only had the virtue of simplicity and of clear and evident usefulness, it also offered the required integral property, for there seemed no possibility of valences of 1.5 or 2.32 or anything like that.*

* Actually, twentieth-century sophistication introduced new concepts of valence that did indeed include something like fractional values but does not affect the line of argument in the chapter.

"The Stars in their Courses" - Isaac Asimov

[mssnoozable]

Gamers suck at naming genres so badly.

What's that game? *oh its like that game doom I played so I guess I'll call it a doom like*

What about this? *oh that's just like that super old game rogue but a little less so it's a roguelite*

And these!? *that's an rpg because they used to have game mechanics like that for games where you played a role... but now you don't play any role and we just never bothered naming them.*

😠

[helpmeimblorboing]

Personally I categorize horror as follows :

Primal horror

This is the original horror - made from darkness and death and slaughter. A mixture of the visceral carnage of an animal's jaws and the slow, psychological dread of the endless

Under it, are two more :

1. Psychological Horror

2. Visceral Horror

Visceral horror is easily explanable, and its categories are generally just gorefests - bestial horror, torture-porn horror, slasher horror, spectral horror, body horror.

But it's opposite is where things get interesting

Psychological Horror is the slow build-up. Tension. Dread without payoff. It doesn't necessarily need to include gore, but often does anyways. To me at least, this type is more disturbing than visceral

Under it are :

Liminal

Proximal

Dysphoric

Somatic

Domestic

Cosmic

Religious

Pseudo-scientific

Absurdist

Liminal horror is a popular enough concept already. The idea of an endless liman - an endless margin. No past, no future. Just the eternal now. The idea of this hazy, dreamlike "world between worlds", where the cake of conventions, and reality ceases to make sense, with the looming dread that it might never make sense again. Interestingly, this is why the "uncanny valley" exists - the transition, or "liman" between the non-human and the human. Liminal horror

Proximal horror is where a familiar environment is twisted against you. An intruder in your home. Your house becoming haunted. Being attacked in a place that is supposed to make you feel safe, adding to the sense of wrongness and the overwhelming fear

Dysphoric horror is where you are trapped inside a body not your own, either of another person, or in some cases, another species. Popular examples include "Finding Mari"

Somatic horror is sleep paralysis, or coma. Being trapped inside your own body, able to think and feel and see, but not to talk or move or gesture, or so much as blink

Domestic horror is the idea that the ones you love, and that you thought you knew, are actually completely different from who you thought they were

Cosmic - everyone knows this

Religious - everyone knows this as well

Pseudo-scientific - it's obvious, right ?

Absurdist - Disturbing, bizarre imagery. Weird, unnerving things. A full-grown man with the mind of an infant, weeping and mostly-naked in a baby costume. Dolls breathing. Eyes in the dark. Milk and vomit. Blood-soaked baby clothes. Pigs snuffling around a corpse

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Concepts

The philosophy of concepts is a branch of philosophy that investigates the nature, structure, and function of concepts in our thinking and communication. Concepts are the mental representations or units of thought that enable us to categorize and make sense of the world. Here are some key areas explored within the philosophy of concepts:

1. Nature of Concepts

Mental Representations: Concepts are often understood as mental representations that play a fundamental role in our cognitive processes. They are the building blocks of thoughts and allow us to understand and interact with the world.

Abstract Entities: Some philosophers view concepts as abstract entities that exist independently of individual minds, akin to Platonic forms or universals.

2. Acquisition of Concepts

Innateness vs. Learning: There is a debate over whether concepts are innate (inborn) or acquired through experience and learning. Nativists argue that certain fundamental concepts are hardwired into our brains, while empiricists believe that all concepts are learned through sensory experience.

Developmental Psychology: This area studies how children acquire and develop concepts as they grow, shedding light on the cognitive processes involved in concept formation.

3. Structure of Concepts

Classical Theory: The classical theory posits that concepts have a definitional structure, with necessary and sufficient conditions for membership (e.g., a triangle is defined as a three-sided polygon).

Prototype Theory: This theory suggests that concepts are organized around typical examples or prototypes, rather than strict definitions. For instance, the concept of "bird" might be centered around a prototypical bird like a robin.

Theory-Theory: According to this view, concepts are like theoretical constructs that are part of our mental theories about the world. They are embedded in a network of beliefs and assumptions.

4. Function of Concepts

Categorization: Concepts allow us to categorize objects, events, and ideas, making it easier to navigate and understand the world.

Communication: Concepts enable effective communication by providing a shared framework for discussing and understanding ideas.

Inference and Reasoning: Concepts facilitate inference and reasoning by allowing us to draw connections between different pieces of information.

5. Conceptual Change

Scientific Revolutions: The philosophy of science explores how concepts change in response to new discoveries and paradigm shifts, as seen in scientific revolutions.

Conceptual Change in Individuals: This area examines how individuals revise their concepts over time in response to new experiences and information.

6. Philosophical Implications

Epistemology: Concepts are central to epistemology, the study of knowledge. Understanding how concepts are formed and justified is crucial for understanding how we know what we know.

Metaphysics: The nature of concepts raises questions about the nature of reality and the relationship between our mental representations and the external world.

Philosophy of Language: Concepts are closely related to language, and the philosophy of language investigates how words and sentences express concepts.

Conclusion

The philosophy of concepts is a rich and interdisciplinary field that intersects with cognitive science, psychology, linguistics, and artificial intelligence. It seeks to understand the fundamental units of thought that underpin our cognitive abilities and shape our understanding of the world.

[unstablenoodle]

Ok so I have something to share.

For my entire life, I have differentiated between different kinds of sweet. Specifically, I place them into two groups: opaque sweet and clear sweet. They are named as such because opaque sweet foods taste like you can’t see through them while clear sweet foods taste see-through. Pretty straight forward.

Except it is not. There are general patterns in categorization, but there are sufficient deviations. For example, cookies, cakes, pies, etc. are all opaque, and they are all confectionary items. However, honey is opaque as well, and bananas are more opaque than all of them. Here’s a table (not comprehensive):

As you can see, baked goods are always opaque while most fruits are clear, but there a sufficient number of deviations to argue that this is merely a correlation. It’s important to note also that if a source flavor is sweet, a derived flavoring or juice may not also be sweet.

What I didn’t show in this table was the combination category. Foods in this box lie somewhere along the spectrum. It includes foods like lemon squares, orange juice, MANGOS, and mint chocolate chip ice cream. I have a theory that these foods are the easiest to pair with the extremes and with non-sweet foods, but I digress.

Furthermore, opacity and clarity govern what texture or temperature is appropriate for the food. Would you heat up an orange? No. Would you heat up a brownie? Yes. Would you eat a cake with flesh-like membranes? I fucking hope not, but you would expect that quality in a juicy fruit. Clear foods tend to be best cold, and invite a wider variety of textures (slippery, membranes, chewy, crunchy) while opaque foods are meant to be soft or mousse-like.

This is not nearly all of it, but it’s a good general outline. Do y’all get what I’m saying?

[demonicmnevice]

Is the protagonist of Pokemon Legends Arceus basically an (Disco Elysium) Innocence by the end of the plot?

They have extra-temporal knowledge of a future society which they make inevitable by claiming a great deal of clout in spheres academic, religious, economic, and most importantly martial. Everyone they influence commits harder to living with Pokemon because of their example. There might even be something worth comparing between spacetime distortions and the Pale.

Maybe being used by a literal divine patron to close a time loop is a point against, there's plenty I don't really get about the Innocentic system yet. Can folks who've played DE more exhaustively or even read the book weigh in?

[howifeltabouthim]

Maybe she's a genius or maybe she's just a menace.

Catherine Lacey, from Biography of X

[heyitsnyixie]

I LOVE CATEGORIZING SHIT!!! WOE TAXONOMY CHART BE UPON YE!!

Blood colors

Category distinctions

I don't have refs for most of these, but I felt the primal urge to sort things

Not gonna lie, I think I might be neuro divergent

Lemme know if yall want non transparent versions.

I decided to go back to some old ideas and I'm going to radically restructure my world building.

(Gross old taxonomy chart btw)

They all used to have special pupil shapes, but that was annoying tbh

This shit was hard to read if you weren't me.