#they all have to do shit like write research papers

[stanart4clearskin]

a/n: heavily manifesting this type of boyfriend

NERD!ART DONALDSON is the type of guy who isn't good at responding at any of your calls and texts because he's either studying or reading. he'll make an effort and turn his ringer on so that he hears a ping every time you text him but it ends up getting to annoying so he shuts it off. in turn he continues to miss all of your texts.

NERD!ART DONALDSON is the type of guy to bring you a book whenever he comes over to your dorm. he loves being able to talk to you about his favorite books so he buys you a copy so that you can have your own and the two of you can talk about it.

NERD!ART DONALDSON is the type of guy who never makes you feel stupid when you can't understand something. he explains it to you in a way that you can grasp but doesn't infantilize you.

NERD!ART DONALDSON is the type of guy who has posters of his favorite comics or movies up on his dorm walls. his desk is covered in stacks of books and there are papers constantly scattered over the floor. even though he's incredibly smart, he can never manage to keep his space tidy.

NERD!ART DONALDSON is the type of guy to carry around a small notebook wherever he goes. he loves to write poetry so he keeps the notebook around so he can write when inspiration strikes. most of his poems are about you.

NERD!ART DONALDSON is the type of guy to write traditional love letters. whenever your gone for a trip or he's gone for tennis, he'll spend time writing you a love letter that he embellishes with small sketches of you and him.

NERD!ART DONALDSON is the type of guy who has a typewriter. after getting a typewriter, he spent hours using it and typing up even more poems for you. whenever you come over to his dorm, he lets you use his typewriter because he knows you find them fascinating but don't want one of your own.

NERD!ART DONALDSON is the type of guy who can't talk to girls. the first time you talked to him, asking if he had a pencil you could borrow, he went red in the face and nervously searched through his pencil case for an extra. he spent so long trying to find the perfect one for you that you had said it was fine and asked someone else to borrow a pencil. art had felt awful afterwards and vowed to talk to you again. it took him a month to finally talk to you again--all he did was ask to borrow your eraser (and he stuttered through that).

NERD!ART DONALDSON is the type of guy who is a giver. he loves to eat you out like it's his life mission. most of the time he thinks going down on you is more enjoyable than sex because he knows all of his hard work is to make you feel good.

NERD!ART DONALDSON is the type of guy who will just spend hours with you in bed, studying your body. it's not even all that sexual as his hands travel over every inch of your skin. he studies your body like it's the most beautiful thing he has ever seen and it is.

NERD!ART DONALDSON is the type of guy who is always scared that you're going to break up with him. he's worried that you'll realize he isn't good enough for you and that you'll leave him for one of stanford's football jocks. he's scared that his quietness is something you secretly detest him for (even though it's something you absolutely adore about him).

NERD!ART DONALDSON is the type of guy who can't cook for shit. even though he's an intelligent man, in the kitchen he is a hopeless case. he lives off of cereal and microwaveable foods. part of the reason he was always so excited for break where he could return home was so that he could eat proper food that his grandma made for him.

NERD!ART DONALDSON is the type of guy who has to know how something works. he sees a cool invention in a movie? he's busting out his laptop and doing hours of research on it. sometimes you have to take his laptop away from him when you two have movie night because you can never just enjoy a movie with him.

NERD!ART DONALDSON is the type of guy who makes little trinkets out of random pieces of trash he has. he takes cardboard boxes and paperclips and makes you cute little animals that he'll leave on your desk when he has to head to tennis practice before you're awake.

NERD!ART DONALDSON is the type of guy who loves kissing. he could spend forever kissing you and never get sick of it. sometimes when you two are cuddling, art will just kiss every inch of your skin that he can reach. there's something so therapeutic about his lips on you that he can't resist.

NERD!ART DONALDSON is the type of guy to use apple music. he doesn't understand why you like spotify so much and even made you a presentation of why apple music is the superior streaming platform.

NERD!ART DONALDSON is the type of guy who surprisingly loves PDA. even though he can be quite shy, he loves showing his affection for you in public because it shows people just how much he loves you. he knows that he doesn't need other people's approval on how much he loves you but he secretly likes telling other guys to back off of you by pulling you into a kiss.

NERD!ART DONALDSON is the type of guy who absolutely hates alcohol. he's gotten drunk a few times but the hangovers the next morning where enough for him to never want to drink again. whenever the two of you go to parties, he's more than happy to stay sober so that he can watch over you and make sure no ones tries anything.

NERD!ART DONALDSON is the type of guy who asked his grandma for her ring before the two of you started dating. he knew it seemed crazy to already want to marry a girl he wasn't dating but there was something about you that art just knew he had to marry you in the future. soon after the two of you graduate from stanford art proposes.

[starfieldcanvas]

I think, from absorbing and considering many responses and counter-responses to the "soullessness" of AI, that it's going to come down to "any attempt to strictly define Art vs. Not Art is eventually going to become indistinguishable from the same damn shit fascists do."

you can define art in a conservative way ('something that uplifts the human spirit', 'something that proves representational skill', 'something beautiful and pleasing to the senses' etc) or you can define it in an anti-conservative way ('something that intentionally triggers an emotional or intellectual response', 'any expression of creativity', 'any human-curated or human-crafted result that reflects the human soul', etc) and yet if you're policing the boundaries between Art and Not-Art, or as OP says Meaningful Art and Meaningless Art, you're still conceding that art is something we should be gatekeeping in the first place—that setting boundaries around art is important and worthwhile.

and maybe that doesn't sound inherently bad or anything, but in my experience, after they affirm their conviction that we should police the boundaries of Art That Counts vs Art That Doesn't, people (including me a few times back at the beginning of the whole generative AI craze!) start re-inventing fascist art theory from first principles. because it's hard to argue for any strict definition of art if you don't also establish why having a strict definition of art is important in the first place, and in order to lay that foundation, you end up talking a lot about what art is for and what art is supposed to do, and once you commit to a reason, you back yourself into a corner and end up having to argue against the art-ness of a bunch of the avant-garde, outsider, and commercial art fascists already reject, except with more exceptions baked in for queer porn.

The danger is similar to that of trying to strictly define Woman vs. Not Woman. You can define 'woman' in a conservative way, with a strict gender role, sexual aesthetic, biological classification, and/or religious destiny; you can also try to define 'woman' in an anti-conservative way, like by shared oppression experience or by Having A Female Soul or (the least bad option) explicit self-identification. regardless, the second you accept that actually policing the boundary between Woman and Not-Woman is important for some reason, it doesn't really matter what kind of criteria you're using, because you're inevitably about to launch your own brand of gender essentialism.

seeking to simplify and purify an inherently messy, boundaryless term complicated by billions of contradictory lived experiences is a fascist project. sure, you inevitably need 'working' definitions of messy terms in order to write philosophy papers or do research studies or establish scholarships or whatever. but if you're trying to establish permanent, real-world boundaries for messy stuff like this, i would say you've forgotten that the map is not and never will be the territory.

(and that's not even getting into the silliness of using 'the human soul'—something that is at worst a nonexistent supernatural entity and at best an intangible metaphor—as a metric for literally anything.)

people want to categorize stuff because we think, on some fundamental level, that being able to categorize things correctly will protect us. but you can learn to hold categories very, very lightly, as moderately useful and inherently temporary conceptual tools, rather than treating categories as more real than the things inside them.

people want to categorize AI art as officially unilaterally universally 'not real art' (or 'inherently meaningless art') because genAI is a genuine threat to us and we think recategorizing it will protect us. but all it would do is make us stupider and more conservative.

okay I'll bite. why exactly is it bad to believe that art is only meaningful if it reflects the human soul

[thorraborinn]

Would it possible at all for you to point me in the direction of how to translate elder futhark runes ie: “Thor, Protector of Humanity”. I’m entertaining the idea of woodburning Norse art.

lol you're gonna hate this. Nobody asks me shit like this anymore so I'm gonna take it too seriously.

Really the answer is "no." I can try to do it for you but I don't think it makes sense for me to say "learn Proto-Norse" and hope for the best. Learning how to do this is a lot more difficult than learning Old Norse or Old English (and tbh "learn ON or OE or OHG" is the actual advice I'd give here). I know you're asking about doing this in general, and not for that phrase in particular, but you happened to provide a good example so I'm going to try a translation and show all my work.

I did put together a very non-exhaustive list of sources on runes available here but honestly that will not get you far here. Turning Proto-Norse into runes is easy, it's the language part that's hard. I also made a big list of deity names in Elder Futhark. Apparently the font embedding broke so it looks like nonsense, and I'm not gonna fight with it now. But the bolded text in each entry can be transliterated into runes. I haven't looked at this in years, but did just update Thor to be more in line with what I have here. Also, don't trust Wikipedia or Wiktionary for this stuff, you can use them as a research tool but verify independently or just use them to find other sources.

If I were in your position, I would consider using Old Norse and the runes that wrote that. Völuspá even gives us a near parallel: Miðgarðs véurr, and one of many ways to write that might be ᚦᚢᚱ ᛬ ᛘᛁᚦᚴᛆᚱᚦᛋ ᛬ ᚢᛁᚢᚱ.

I should make sure sure you're asking what you want to be asking. I'm assuming you want to translate into language that was spoken when the Elder Futhark was used. Some people say "translate" when they mean the less-commonly-known-but-more-accurate "transliterate" (turn "abc" into "ᚨᛒᚲ"). Maybe you just want to go ᚦᛟᚱ ᛬ ᛈᚱᛟᛏᛖᚲᛏᛟᚱ ᛬ ᛟᚠ ᛬ ᚺᚢᛗᚨᚾᛁᛏᛁ and call it a day, and there's nothing wrong with that but you don't need my help for it so I'm guessing that isn't what you mean.

Anyway I'll give you my crack at a translation of the phrase you provided now in case you don't want to read the rest of this but the explanation is after the break:

*þonaraʀ warjaʀ *man(n)akunjas þonaraʀ warijaʀ manakunjas ᚦᛟᚾᚨᚱᚨᛉ ᛬ ᚹᚨᚱᛁᛃᚨᛉ ᛬ ᛗᚨᚾᚨᚲᚢᚾᛃᚨᛊ

(the i ~ ij thing is on purpose. word boundary markers optional)

Thor

There are some unclear phonological aspects of *þun?raz > Þórr. Haukur Þorgeirsson recently addressed this (this article is currently paywalled but for some reason the whole thing loaded just fine for me a few hours ago, not sure why), and I find his conclusions satisfactory, which complicates things. Haukur proposes an earlier *Þunurr but doesn't rule out *Þonarr (or earlier reflex of these). By Haukur's analysis the former is easier to resolve within Old Norse but the latter is more convenient with some other proposals already made, especially by comparative linguists. So we find ourselves with two proposals for the god's name in Elder Futhark-era language: ᚦᚢᚾᚢᚱᚨᛉ *þunuraʀ and ᚦᛟᚾᚨᚱᚨᛉ *þonaraʀ. I'm conditioned to favor *þonaraʀ, but I can't find fault in Haukur's preference for *þunuraʀ within the context of his own paper.

The only reason I'm not siding with it is that it seems impossible to resolve with Old High German donar and Old Saxon thunar (both 'thunder'; compare *eburaz > OHG/OS ebur, not **ebar). So while Haukur's got me convinced that *þunuraʀ seems like a more likely immediate precursor to Þórr, I can't shake *þonaraʀ being what seems to me, at least for now, a necessary precursor to the OHG especially. And for now, "seems necessary" beats "more likely." Of course variation is possible but that isn't a way to handwave conflicting data, it's a whole separate thing to investigate, and I haven't done that yet.

If I were researching something for myself, or for something permanent like a tattoo, I'd keep going and make sure I'm more confident. Even Haukur leaves open possibilities I haven't mentioned here. If nothing else, at least *þunraz no longer seems necessary to maintain (as Ringe 2014 thought following Noreen 1923).

Alternatively, one who does prefer *þunraz as the Proto-Germanic could probably be convinced to allow an epenthetic vowel for Elder Futhark-era language, so we're safe there.

I probably could have left all this out. *þonaraʀ is a fairly normal, mainstream way to reconstruct Þórr. But that wouldn't have been an accurate depiction of the situation. However we work this out, it highlights that what we're doing is not speaking/writing ancient, dead, unattested language. Or, if we are, it's only incidental to the primary thing we're doing, which is trying and sometimes failing to understand how attested words relate to each other, and taking sides in arguments about that.

protector

Selecting a word for 'protector' is difficult. It was only with some hesitation that I went with warjaʀ, a word only attested in compounded personal names like Landawar(i)jaʀ on the Tørvika A stone. It's highly likely to be derived from *warjan- 'to protect/defend.' What's a little weird, though, is that it seems to always be written warijaʀ, in apparent violation of Sievers' Law. I won't get into details here because this post is gonna be long enough as it is, but let it be known the word (and others -- the (i)ja thing recurs a bunch in the Elder corpus) is controversial and my preference for leaving it as it's attested would probably not be universal.

Snorri calls Thor verjandi Ásgarðs, Miðgarðs 'protector of Ásgarðr, Miðgarðr.' To be honest, this isn't the most common use of verjandi; usually it means 'defendant' in a trial, but we can get its meaning from context. We should stop to question whether it could have been used that way some 700 years before Snorri, and once we're satisfied that we can use it we run into trouble again with the non-phonological change of the suffix *-andz > -andi. The *-andz suffix is poorly attested in the Elder Futhark. We have the Tune stone's witada witanda-, but it's a compound word and doesn't give us the nominative ending. Then there's the Eggja stone's suwimąde swimmande and gąląnde galandi which are late enough to be basically fully Old Norse, and doesn't tell us much about earlier language. In Old Norse, these -andi words have the same endings as an n-stem in the singular, and maybe they did in Proto-Norse, but we don't have nominative (or even uncompounded in any case) forms from early enough to be sure. *warjandʀ or *warjanda? Or something else? If not for this, it's the word I'd probably use, and if we want to come as close as we can to technical dictionary accuracy, we'll have to be okay with a shot in the dark at the morphological state of the language.

Also derived from verja are vernd, verndari, vǫrn, vǫrðr. Both vernd and vǫrn mean roughly 'protection' and it makes more sense to say that Thor gives or provides them than that he is them. A vǫrðr is a guard or warden -- Heimdallr is definitely a vǫrðr but I'm not certain Thor is. Most likely, verndari is a later, Norse-era formation, which is unfortunate because it is the word I'd use if we were translating to Old Norse (might go a little bit something like ᚦᚢᚱ ᛬ ᚢᛆᚱ(ᚿ)ᛐᛆᚱᛁ ᛬ ᛘᚭᚿᚴᚢ(ᚿ)ᛋ).

In Old Norse there's also gæta. It isn't attested outside of North Germanic which means relying on internal reconstruction, which isn't great. Kroonen's (2013) *ganhatjan- makes sense and PN *gą̄tijaʀ does seem pretty reasonable as a reconstruction. Semantically, I'm not sure if it's a good fit, though I'm having trouble articulating why. Its meaning should be something like 'to watch, tend, take care of' and in most modern language is more like what Iðunn does with her apples, or what a shepherd does with their flock, than what Thor does with humans, but I don't know that we can be so precise with Proto-Norse and in either case I don't think it's wrong. Actually, perhaps gætir Miðgarðs would be a better way to put it (hint: gætir Miðgarðs < *gą̄tijaʀ miðjagarðas ᚷᚨᛏᛁᛃᚨᛉ ᛬ ᛗᛁᛞᛃᚨᚷᚨᚱᛞᚨᛊ).

The Norse word hlífa might be closer to what we're looking for, though it might only seem that way because we have little evidence to contradict it. In Norse it means 'to protect/defend/shelter (from something)' and works here, but its attestations in other Germanic languages are a little weak and don't inspire confidence in the semantics.

Given all this, I can't help but feel it's best to return to war(i)jaʀ. Though unattested outside of names, it presumably had an independent existence at some point, and is transparently derived from the verb *warjan- 'to defend.' And maybe most importantly, it is actual, attested language. This is a rare opportunity to forget about what I said at the end of the "Thor" section and connect to real language committed to real record by real people.

As an aside, véurr, mentioned way above, is probably etymologically equivalent to vé + warjaʀ, so *wīhawarjaʀ ᚹᛁᚺᚨᚹᚨᚱᛁᛃᚨᛉ.

humanity

We catch a break with 'humanity.' There are complications but they won't end up mattering. There are a few ways to say 'humanity' but they all start man(n)-; we can have our pick of -kin or -kind to end it but -kin is more common, which in PN is *kunja. But the 'man' words in early Germanic languages are a little weird. Sometimes it has one n, sometimes two; it's always two in Old Norse, but it's hard to say if that was true in elder runic language. Fortunately we can sidestep this: in most runes you only write a letter once, even if the sound is long. But to use a connecting vowel or not? Gothic has compounds in mana-, manna-, man-, and mann-. So *man(n)akunja or *man(n)kunja? Well, as Martin Syrett (1994) pounds out, Germanic in general and Gothic in particular are not consistent when it comes to stem vowels in compounds. There's a tendency to spread -a- as a connecting vowel even where it doesn't belong. So we should feel pretty safe that even if *man(n)akunja isn't the inherited form from Proto-Germanic, it was always a possibility. Finally, worst comes to worst, you could just let ᛗ stand for the whole word, given that it's the 'man' rune anyway.

Last, we'll have to put that in the genitive case to make it 'of mankind.' We don't have examples of neuter ja-stems in the genitive from the Elder Futhark but there isn't really strong reason to believe it wasn't *-jas, so: *kunjas.

We've arrived at my answer:

*þonaraʀ warjaʀ *man(n)akunjas þonaraʀ warijaʀ manakunjas ᚦᛟᚾᚨᚱᚨᛉ ᛬ ᚹᚨᚱᛁᛃᚨᛉ ᛬ ᛗᚨᚾᚨᚲᚢᚾᛃᚨᛊ

Anyway I hope you don't mind me going completely over the top answering this, I don't think I realized before starting to answer this that I needed to get it out of my system.

[hand-face-chan]

I'm only halfway though Hbomberguy's new video and I dont know if this is a universal experience but my main horrified takeaway from hbomb's plagiarism video so far is that one of my highschools TAUGHT AN ENTIRE CLASS OF 13 YEAR OLDS TO PLAGIARISE. LIKE, ON PURPOSE.

I ended up moving to a much better highschool, but my first highschool essentially taught us to "write" essays by reading what someone else had written and then write what they said again but putting it "into your own words". Which in practice was teaching us to change, for example, "the works of Shakespeare were regarded by many as the first popular art form" to "Shakespeare's plays have been said by some to be the first example of popular media". One teacher actually told us that the process of writing an essay was "saying what the people you've researched have said, in a way where it sounds like you said it".

Like. The tactics that actual plagiarists use to hide the fact that they were stealing. An actual teacher tried to teach me to do that.

[apocalypticdemon]

i CANNOT wait for this semester to be over. 23 hours remain. God.

[mallk-z]

No, but university professors might be. I went to a local state college and my professor kicked ass at it. I tried to take a university calc class and the quality of professor tanked like a stone in water. My sympathy goes out for people who have to deal with them

my roommate's been having a ROUGH time with her calculus class and the horrible professor that teaches it so i was cooking some comfort carbs for her in the hall kitchen when she sees a guy in a batman costume for 0.5 seconds on the 2nd floor balcony above us. totally shocked her out of the bad mood for a minute. later on as she's eating i ask her if she's feeling better and she just sniffles and takes a bite of her buttermilk biscuit and in the saddest, most trembling voice she mumbles "i want batman to come back :("

[palms-upturned]

.

[iamthepulta]

mission failed, Thriftbooks got me

but I got The Book of Charlatans AND Mercury Mining and Empire with double point rewards, so who's actually the winner here?

[purgaytorysupremacy]

I would like everyone to know that I will be celebrating November 5th by presenting the draft outline of this paper to my graduate-level "uses and abuses of history" philosophy class

[skitskatdacat63]

I will read the most inane and useless stuff for hours just for my own interest/enjoyment, but reading academic papers is like pulling a tooth 😭😭 like I genuinely think I'd find the info interesting but the fact that ik it's in pursuit of doing an assignment somehow manages to kills my motivation 100%

[parakeetpark]

I am going to loose my mind trying to organise this funeral. And it's just me doing most of it alone so i cannot stop. I have to keep going

Okay.... warning i did hit 30 tags. Like u been warned if u open my tags u will be scrolling

I need a cigarette so bad and I can't drink because health. And I'm SO WIRED

[iknowwhereyousleepatnight]

it’s contemplating if i should change my major even though i’m graduating in december hours….. again

[syn4k]

we are fuckin COOKIN with this character analysis this morning holy fuck

[voluptuarian]

Finally jumped into my Turkey paper so the worst (the utterly paralyzing anxiety before and then complete bewilderment as I read through 60 FUCKING PAGES OF NOTES trying to remember wtf I was even going to say) is over

Have literally just been going through the notes and putting stuff into a google doc as I go, waiting on structure to emerge as I do (and it's starting to come together now)

but since I took 60 FUCKING PAGES OF NOTES just getting through the first half already has me at 9.5 pages of writing for a paper that's supposed to be 25ish

(all of which, btw, explicitly ties the "New Turkey" agenda to Sevres Syndrome, Ottoman imperial nostalgia, and AKP attempting to turn the country into a one-party nation with Erdogan as its sultan-esque figurehead-- the outcome I proposed originally and which my professor told me wasn't "accurate," putting me into this backpedaling position in the first place. If it's not accurate, then he had better start buying stamps, because many authors in many journals for DECADES have been contributing their opinions to a large body of work that says is IS accurate, so he will have a lot people to set right.)

Also I already hated Erdogan but now he's personally responsible for me even having had to write this paper, so I'm gunning for him on a purely intimate scholarly hatred as well as international ethical/political one

[infizero]

oh my god secret life is tomorrow.

[read-write-thrive]

fiiiine okay Alexander Palace and Isaac Finch and Jimmy Green here we go

fem!payneland is seriously running the show that is my brain rn, like I was going to write a quick flirty one shot to incorporate how perplexed Charlotte would be with Edwina’s undergarments (as inspired by my fanart series, most recent part and links to all the others found here!) but then I somehow managed to rewrite nearly the whole meeting scene with my versions of the characters and now I want to make it a series too……….. something about the ghost yuri is getting to me

if I end up writing any more than what I’ve already done, however, I’ll want to bring Crystal and Niko and all our favorite other characters into the fold as well, so now I’ve got a bigger question for y’all: (and yes I also don’t like the term genderbend but im using it here to denote that they're sex swapped as in not trans about it yk)