Ebic, high power levels post. Expressed a lot of stuff I’ve muttered to myself.
I fucking hate doing citations for papers, using Le Citation generator and sitting through interactive ads because I can’t remember which piece of minutia needs to be italicized.
Citations are a little sport for midwits that think by knowing how to cite APA they’re academics. I gritted my teeth in high school watching my midwit English teacher tell me my paper was “pretty good” but that I would be losing 7 points for not citing correctly. All the information and writing itself was excellent, yet I lost a letter grade for not copying from Citation Generator correctly. All from someone that was braaped out from a low tier small town college, that was entirely beneath me in literacy. Enraging!
I frankly don't care how you format citations as long as it's got the important info. I've written enough papers in academia that I don't use a citation generator anymore (a lot of them are wrong anyways).
As long as you put the author, title, edition, publisher, and date I don't really care. Or if it's digitized, just link it from Archive.org like I said. I just hate seeing interesting claims or facts and then not being able to find the original source.
There’s honestly a lot of good pasta in old “outdated” scholars. I was reading part of Guenther’s “The Racial Elements of European History” and was pleasantly surprised by some of the older literature he dug up. For example, a Jewish Physician in 4th century Athens who claimed true Ionians were blond and tall
Yes old scholars are really my favorite. I think it's because most modern scholars basically just write books responding to eachother so you never actually get much primary source material, where older stuff is basically entirely primary source material cuz that's just how they wrote. Most modern publications I read nowadays are just primary sources collections cuz I really don't care to read through 4 books of midwit dweeb neolib professors argue over something when they're both wrong anyways.
"I oscillate between a state of refined intellect and unrefined banality. This is because I think this is the best way to understand the world and, more importantly, to lead it. The best leaders were always in touch with their people on an intimate, personal, level while simultaneously existing as something else. Something more."
So so true brother. I see so many people on the right disregarding this connection as beneath them, as if their people, the everyman of their people, isn't worth their time - when really it is absolutely vital to have that connection. That attitude will only ostracize us in the long run.
Really, we should be able to meet our people - the everyman of our people - at eye level. Be able to connect, understand on a personal level, relate, be able to say "I know you, I understand you, we can relate to one another, we see a bit of ourselves in each other" while still remaining the exemplar. If you can't knock heads and get your hands dirty with the best of them, then turn around and write an enlightening essay on the modern world and human condition, you won't get very far at all. We should be great men, and men who are referred to as just great guys all around. Be the best of what we are without forgetting who we are.
I’ve had conversations where the other person has asked me for a source multiple times, and even after successfully backing up my point and having them concede, they don’t acknowledge that I’m trustworthy not going to lie to them, and they continue to ask me for a source for everything I say. Naturally, this only happens with lefties.
Ebic, high power levels post. Expressed a lot of stuff I’ve muttered to myself.
I fucking hate doing citations for papers, using Le Citation generator and sitting through interactive ads because I can’t remember which piece of minutia needs to be italicized.
Citations are a little sport for midwits that think by knowing how to cite APA they’re academics. I gritted my teeth in high school watching my midwit English teacher tell me my paper was “pretty good” but that I would be losing 7 points for not citing correctly. All the information and writing itself was excellent, yet I lost a letter grade for not copying from Citation Generator correctly. All from someone that was braaped out from a low tier small town college, that was entirely beneath me in literacy. Enraging!
I frankly don't care how you format citations as long as it's got the important info. I've written enough papers in academia that I don't use a citation generator anymore (a lot of them are wrong anyways).
As long as you put the author, title, edition, publisher, and date I don't really care. Or if it's digitized, just link it from Archive.org like I said. I just hate seeing interesting claims or facts and then not being able to find the original source.
There’s honestly a lot of good pasta in old “outdated” scholars. I was reading part of Guenther’s “The Racial Elements of European History” and was pleasantly surprised by some of the older literature he dug up. For example, a Jewish Physician in 4th century Athens who claimed true Ionians were blond and tall
Yes old scholars are really my favorite. I think it's because most modern scholars basically just write books responding to eachother so you never actually get much primary source material, where older stuff is basically entirely primary source material cuz that's just how they wrote. Most modern publications I read nowadays are just primary sources collections cuz I really don't care to read through 4 books of midwit dweeb neolib professors argue over something when they're both wrong anyways.
"I oscillate between a state of refined intellect and unrefined banality. This is because I think this is the best way to understand the world and, more importantly, to lead it. The best leaders were always in touch with their people on an intimate, personal, level while simultaneously existing as something else. Something more."
So so true brother. I see so many people on the right disregarding this connection as beneath them, as if their people, the everyman of their people, isn't worth their time - when really it is absolutely vital to have that connection. That attitude will only ostracize us in the long run.
Really, we should be able to meet our people - the everyman of our people - at eye level. Be able to connect, understand on a personal level, relate, be able to say "I know you, I understand you, we can relate to one another, we see a bit of ourselves in each other" while still remaining the exemplar. If you can't knock heads and get your hands dirty with the best of them, then turn around and write an enlightening essay on the modern world and human condition, you won't get very far at all. We should be great men, and men who are referred to as just great guys all around. Be the best of what we are without forgetting who we are.
I’ve had conversations where the other person has asked me for a source multiple times, and even after successfully backing up my point and having them concede, they don’t acknowledge that I’m trustworthy not going to lie to them, and they continue to ask me for a source for everything I say. Naturally, this only happens with lefties.
It's because they actively want you to be wrong and the idea of you even possibly being right is distressing to them.