🔥 Popular | Latest

God, Ignorant, and Love: HE WO MAN FE MALE HU MAN PER SON visual-poetry »swofehuperx by richard tipping (+) [vial mitosisisyourtosis men fabricated the idea that they are the default sex to compensate for their biological inferiority and general superfluousness this is not just the natural order this is the language of a patriarchal culture rhysiare Omg no, you are wrong on so many levels and as a linguist this makes me ache something terrible. In my linguistics dass in undergrad, we actually made fun of people who think like you along these lines and for good reason, because you are wholly ignorant and are choosing to spin narratives about things and fields which you know completely nothing about yet pretend you do. 1 She: This word evolved naturally from Old English from seo/heo which were just words to refer to feminine-female people evolving from Proto- Germanic words meaning that/there. He as a word evolved from the same ideas but Proto-Germanic words for thishere, Your idea of patriarchal language further falls apart when you compare this part of English to other Germanic languages, of which English is related, the words in German for he and she are 'er and sie", completely unrelated So it is by clear happenstance, not some patriarchal conspiracy that the words he and "she in English have similar form. 2. Woman: Oh god this one always gets my goat when people go for this one. Man did not used to mean "male", man used to mean humanity/human being, the old words in Old English for male adult person and female adult person were werman and wifman respectively, we can see this relation in words like werewolf and wife as being the remnants of the base "wer- and the base wif-. Woman evolved phonologically from the word wifman by natural processes where the 'f sound dropped and the became lax. Man dropped its wer stem for reasons mostly unknown but I can guarantee have nothing to do with patriarchy because phonological change has no basis in that. 3. Female: Male and Female actually come etymologically from two completely different words. Male comes from Old French masle which meant masculine, while Female came from Old French as well femella which meant young woman. This is another case, just like he and she where the words coincidentally ended up looking similar without having any direct correlation in historical linguistic processes to make them as such 4 Hman: This word etymologically derives from Proto-Indo- European "ghomon which means earthly being as opposed to heavenly being which would refer to gods. You have some small glimmer of hope here in that the word does eventually branch off into the word for man in some languages but this is still too small of a precedent to base any conspiratorial thinking like you are doing off of 5. Person: This one offends me the most, simply because I love the fuck out of Etruscan language and your continued ignorance just irks me at this point. Person derives from persona from Latin which meant the same meaning, which ultimately derived from phersu Etruscan for mask as Etruscans would often have theatre performers use masks to give identity to the performers. So never once did "person have any meaning to do with son So yes, this IS the natural order or language. Please never proselytise your faulty ideology and misandrist thinking within speaking about word origins and morphology again, as unless you actually do fact checking I will school the everloving hell out of you, stay in vour lane. Swofehuper He Man Male Manson
Save
Animals, Dude, and God: O11:37 lancerbuck billysquirrel Followw just-shower-thoughts Mammals both produce milk and have hain Ergo, a coconut is a mammal maliwanhellfires I know you're being facetious, but this is an actual issue with morphology-based phylogeny castiel-for-king Deactivated *leans over and whispers to person beside me* what are they talking about sonneillonv leans over and whispers back* Human ability to quantify and categorize natural phenomena is sketchy at best and wildly misleading at worst nonlinear-nonsubjective consider the coconut bemusedlybespectacled this reminds me of that time Plato defined humans as "featherless bipeds" and Diogenes ran in with a plucked chicken screaming "BEHOLD A MAN!" erotic-yoddeling i love how you say "it reminds me of that time" like you were there heartgemsona listen if an immortal feels brave and supported enough to come out we should respect them This post is a journey virtuous-thing 1 Reblog 1 Respect dovewithscales I maintain that humans started attempting classify animals, and some god or another made the platypus, and is still laughing messy-scandinoodle Zeus: *hits joint* okay so like. It's gonna have a duck bill right. But an otter body okay? And then a beaver tail. It's a mammal. But. It lays eggs! Hades: wait wait dude. Give it. Give it poison Make it poisonous dovewithscales Athena: You mean venomous, and make sure the eggs have both reptile and bird traits Hermes: *takes the joint* Give it extra senses Poseidon: It should be aquatic. hyratel I MEAN where's the lie dovewithscales Demeter:... And where exactly do you expect me to put this? Everyone: Australia pepoluan This thread goes every which way and is a glorious thing begat by Tumblr 337,354 notes But where did you get the coconuts?

But where did you get the coconuts?

Save
Animals, Dude, and God: 0 B/s 12:06 am @ 22% D bixgirl1 just-shower-thoughts Mammals both produce milk and have hair Ergo, a coconut is a mammal maliwanhellfires I know you're being facetious, but this is an actual issue with morphology-based phylogeny castiel-for-king leans over and whispers to person beside me* what are they talking about sonneillonv leans over and whispers back* Human ability to quantify and categorize natural phenomena is sketchy at best and wildly misleading at worst nonlinear-nonsubjective consider the coconut bemusedlybespectacled this reminds me of that time Plato defined humans as "featherless bipeds" and Diogenes ran in with a plucked chicken screaming "BEHOLD A MAN! erotic-yoddeling i love how you say "it reminds me of that time" like you were there heartgemsona listen if an immortal feels brave and supported enough to come out we should respect them This post is a journey virtuous-thing 1 Reblog 1 Respect dovewithscales I maintain that humans started attempting classify animals, and some god or another made the platypus, and is still laughing. messy-scandinoodle Zeus: *hits joint* okay so like. It's gonna have a duck bill right. But an otter body okay? And then a beaver tail. It's a mammal. But. It lays eggs! Hades: wait wait dude. Give it. Give it poison Make it poisonous dovewithscales Athena: You mean venomous, and make sure the eggs have both reptile and bird traits Hermes: *takes the joint* Give it extra senses Poseidon: It should be aquatic. hyratel I MEAN where's the lie dovewithscales Demeter: And where exactly do you expect me to put this? Everyone: Australia. giada-luna Reblogging for that last exchange brainwad Dionysus slips in at the last minute and makes it sweat milk Source: just-shower-thoughts Coconut, a mammal.

Coconut, a mammal.

Save
Animals, Dude, and God: just-shower-thoughts Mammals both produce milk and have hair. Ergo, a coconut is a mammal. maliwanhellfires I know you're being facetious, but this is an actual issue with morphology-based phylogeny. castiel-for-king leans over and whispers to person beside me* what are they talking about sonneillonv leans over and whispers back* Human ability to quantify and categorize natural phenomena is sketchy at best and wildly misleading at worst nonlinear-nonsubjective consider the coconut bemusedlybespectacled this reminds me of that time Plato defined humans as "featherless bipeds" and Diogenes ran in with a plucked chicken screaming "BEHOLD A MAN!" erotic-yoddeling i love how you say "it reminds me of that time" like you were there heartgemsona listen if an immortal feels brave and supported enough to come out we should respect them This post is a journey virtuous-thing 1 Reblog 1 Respect dovewithscales I maintain that humans started attempting classify animals, and some god or another made the platypus, and is still laughing messy-scandinoodle Zeus: *hits joint* okay so like. It's gonna have a duck bill right. But an otter body okay? And then a beaver tail. It's a mammal. But. It lays eggs! Hades: wait wait dude. Give it. Give it poison. Make it poisonous dovewithscales Athena: You mean venomous, and make sure the eggs have both reptile and bird traits Hermes: *takes the joint* Give it extra senses Poseidon: It should be aquatic hyratel I MEAN where's the lie dovewithscales Demeter: .. And where exactly do you expect me to put this? Evervone: Australia giada-luna Reblogging for that last exchange brainwad Dionysus slips in at the last minute and makes it sweat milk. Source: just-shower-thoughts The old ones are f-ing with us when they made platypuses.
Save
Alive, Animals, and Apparently: flamethrowing-hurdy-gurdy: flamethrowing-hurdy-gurdy I have had this on my mind for days, someone please help: I mean, how do we see a pug and then a husky and understand that both are dogs? I'm pretty sure I've never seen a picture of a breed of dog I hadn't seen before and wondered what animal it Do you want the Big Answer or the Small Answers cos I have a feeling this is about to get intense Oooh okay are YOU gonna answer this, hang on I need to get some snacks and make sure the phone is off The short answer is "because they're statistically unlikely to be anything else The long question is "given the extreme diversity of morphology in dogs, with many subsets of dogs' bearing no visual resemblance to each other, how am 1 able to intuit that they belong to the 'dog set just by The reason that this is a Good Big Question is because we are broadly used to categorising Things as related based on resemblances. Then everyoneI have Fun Facts like "elephants are ACTUALLY closely related to rock hyraxes!! Even though they look nothing alike!!" e realized abou t genes and evolution and so on, and so now we These Fun Facts are appealing because they're not intuitive. So why is dog-sorting intuitive? Well, because if you eliminate all the other possibilities, most dogs are dogs. To process Things- whether animals, words, situations or experiences our brains categorise the most important things about them, and then compare these to our memory banks. If we've experienced the same thing before- whether first-hand or through a story then we know what's happening, and we proceed accordingly If the New Thing is completely New, then t question marks, shunts into a different track, counts up all the Similar Traits, and assigns it a provisional category based on its similarity to other Things. We then experience the Thing, exploring it further, and he brain pings up a Our brain t categorises the New based on the knowledge and traits. That is how humans experience the universe. We do our best, and we generally do it well. This is the basis of stereotyping. It behaviours (racism), some of our most challenging problems (trauma), helps us survive (stories) and sharing the ability with things that dont have it leads to some of our most whimsical creations (artificial In fact, one reason that humans are so wonderfully successful is that we can effectively gain knowledge from experiences without having experienced them personally! You dont have to eat all the berries to find the poisonous ones. You can just remember stories and descriptions of berries, and compare those to the ones you've just discovered. You can benefit from memorics that aren't your own! On the other hand, if you had a terribly traumatic experience involving say, an eagle, then your brain will try to protect you in every way possible from a similar experience. If you collect too many traumatic experiences with eagles, then your brain will not enjoy eagle-shapecd New Things. In fact, if New Things match up to too many cagle-like noise!! 。The hot Glare of the Yellow Eye CLAWS VERY BAD VERY BAD Then the brain may shunt the train of thought back into trauma, and the person will actually experience the New Thing as trauma. Even if the New Thing was something apparently unrelated, like being generally pointy, or having a hot glare. (This is an overly simplistic explanation of how triggers work, but it's the one most accessible to people.) So the answer rests in how we categorise dogs, and what "dog" means to humans. Human brains associate dogs with universal categories, such efour legs Mcat Eater e Soft friend An BORK BORK Anything we have previously experienced and learned as A Dog gets added to the memory bank. Sometimes it brings new categories along with it. So a lifetime's experience results in excellent dog-intuition And anything we experience with, say, a 90% match is officially a Dog. Brains are super good at eliminating things, too. So while the concept of physical doggo-ness is pretty nebulous, and has to include greyhounds and Pekingese and mastiffs, we know that even if an animal LOOKS like a bear, if the other categories don't match up in context (bears are not usually soft friends, they don't Bork Bork, they don't have long tails to wag) then it is statistically more likely to be a Doggo. If it occupies a dog-shaped space then it is usually a dog. So if you see someone dragging a fluffy whatnot along on a string, you will go, Mop? (Unlikely-seems to be self propelled.) ° Alien? (Unlikely-no real alien ever experienced.) Threat? (Vastly unlikely in context.) Rabbit? (No. Rabbits hop, and this appears to scurry.) (Brains are very keen on categorising movement patterns. This is why lurching zombies and bad CGl are so uncomfortable to experience, brains just go INCORRECT!! That is WRONG!" Without consciously knowing why. Anyway, very few animals move like domestic dogs!) Very fluffy cat? (Maybe-but not quite. Shares many characteristics, though!) Eldritch horror? (No, it is obviously a soft friend of unknown type) Robotic toy? (Unlikely too complex and convincing.) animal detected!!! Thi s is a good animal!! This is pleasing!! It may be appropriate to laugh at this animal, because we have just realized that it is probably a DOG!! Soft friend, alive, walks on leash. It had a low doggo-ness quotient! and a confusing Snout, but it is NOT those other Known Things, and it occupies a dog-shaped space! Hahahaha!!! It is extra funny and appealing, because it made us guess!! We love playing that game * PING! NEW CATEGORIES ADDED TO "Doggo set mopness, floof. Snout. And that's why most dogs are dogs. You're so good at identifying dog shaped spaces that they can't be anything else! The science of identifying Good Boys

The science of identifying Good Boys

Save
Animals, Dude, and God: lancerbuck billysquirrel Follovw just-shower-thoughts Mammals both produce milk and have hair Ergo, a coconut is a mammal maliwanhellfires I know you're being facetious, but this is an actual issue with morphology-based phylogeny castiel-for-king Deactivated leans over and whispers to person beside me* what are they talking about b sonneillonv leans over and whispers back* Human ability to quantify and categorize natural phenomena is sketchy at best and wildly misleading at worst consider the coconut bemusedlybespectacled this reminds me of that time Plato defined humans as "featherless bipeds" and Diogenes ran in with a plucked chicken screaming "BEHOLD A MAN!" erotic-yoddeling i love how you say "it reminds me of that time" like you were there heartgemsona listen if an immortal feels brave and supported enough to come out we should respect them This post is a journey virtuous-thing 1 Reblog 1 Respect I maintain that humans started attempting classify animals, and some god or another made the platypus, and is still laughing Zeus: *hits joint* okay so like. It's gonna have a duck bill right. But an otter body okay? And then a beaver tail. It's a mammal. But. It lays eggs! Hades: wait wait dude. Give it. Give it poison Make it poisonous dovewithscales Athena: You mean venomous, and make sure the eggs have both reptile and bird traits. Hermes: *takes the joint* Give it extra senses. Poseidon: It should be aquatic hyratel I MEAN wheres the lie dovewithscales Demeter:. And where exactly do you expect me to put this? Everyone: Australia pepoluan This thread goes every which way and is a glorious thing begat by Tumblr 337,354 notes Consider the coconut

Consider the coconut

Save
Animals, Dude, and God: just-shower-thoughts Mammals both produce milk and have hair Ergo, a coconut is a mammal maliwanhellfires I know you're being facetious, but this is an actual issue with morphology-based phylogeny castiel-for-king leans over and whispers to person beside me* what are they talking about sonneillonv leans over and whispers back* Human ability to quantify and categorize natural phenomena is sketchy at best and wildly misleading at worst nonlinear-nonsubjective consider the coconut bemusedlybespectacled this reminds me of that time Plato defined humans as "featherless bipeds" and Diogenes ran in with a plucked chicken screaming "BEHOLD A MAN!" erotic-yoddeling i love how you say "it reminds me of that time" like you were there. heartgemsona listen if an immortal feels brave and supported enough to come out we should respect them This post is a journey virtuous-thing 1 Reblog 1 Respect dovewithscales I maintain that humans started attempting classify animals, and some god or another made the platypus, and is still laughing messy-scandinoodle Zeus: *hits joint* okay so like. It's gonna have a duck bill right. But an otter body okay? And then a beaver tail. It's a mammal. But. It lays eggs! Hades: wait wait dude. Give it. Give it poison Make it poisonous dovewithscales Athena: You mean venomous, and make sure the eggs have both reptile and bird traits Hermes: *takes the joint* Give it extra senses Poseidon: It should be aquatio hyratel I MEAN where's the lie dovewithscales Demeter: .. And where exactly do you expect me to put this? Everyone: Australia Source: just-shower-thoughts The was a trip

The was a trip

Save
Animals, Dude, and God: just-shower-thoughts Mammals both produce milk and have hair Ergo, a coconut is a mammal maliwanhellfires I know you're being facetious, but this is an actual issue with morphology-based phylogeny castiel-for-king leans over and whispers to person beside me* what are they talking about sonneillonv leans over and whispers back* Human ability to quantify and categorize natural phenomena is sketchy at best and wildly misleading at worst nonlinear-nonsubjective consider the coconut bemusedlybespectacled this reminds me of that time Plato defined humans as "featherless bipeds" and Diogenes ran in with a plucked chicken screaming "BEHOLD A MAN!" erotic-yoddeling i love how you say "it reminds me of that time" like you were there. heartgemsona listen if an immortal feels brave and supported enough to come out we should respect them This post is a journey virtuous-thing 1 Reblog 1 Respect dovewithscales I maintain that humans started attempting classify animals, and some god or another made the platypus, and is still laughing messy-scandinoodle Zeus: *hits joint* okay so like. It's gonna have a duck bill right. But an otter body okay? And then a beaver tail. It's a mammal. But. It lays eggs! Hades: wait wait dude. Give it. Give it poison Make it poisonous dovewithscales Athena: You mean venomous, and make sure the eggs have both reptile and bird traits Hermes: *takes the joint* Give it extra senses Poseidon: It should be aquatio hyratel I MEAN where's the lie dovewithscales Demeter: .. And where exactly do you expect me to put this? Everyone: Australia Source: just-shower-thoughts The was a trip

The was a trip

Save