@lucy and I used a meme-format in the wrong context-sorry for making a post that plausibly seems like it's directed at you personally, it wasn't, but the impersonal you seems to have misfired :-/
@lucy you assume a nonbinary identity to plausibly climb the social - left status hierarchy, I assume a non-binary identity to muddy the waters around my unacceptable beliefs and hobbies
We are not the same
@cosmiccitizen surprisingly common for philosophers to make the move of "my grand idea is deeply bound up with my pet peeve"
Deleuze (as so often!) did it right with treating books as toolboxes
@j2kun @rogue_scholar more than one would think
@Paradox Indeed anxiety! The dizziness of freedom, the burning off of tension :-D
@Paradox avoidance weasel, the little furry creature in the back of my mind inventing reasona not to talk to women I'm attracted to
@cosmiccitizen I wonder whether I'm deluded or if politics did have more content back then
("class warfare succumbed to brainrot")
@Paradox ah, "attribute" as in "figure put who wrote what", not "say that X wrote Y"
I was ambiguous
@Paradox yeah, Wikipedia editors usually don't do that :-)
@Paradox There is - http://wikipedia.ramselehof.de/wikiblame.php but UX is, uh, questionable
@Paradox …not sure what you mean. I'm talking about attributing a specific part *of the article text* to the user that wrote it, which is orthogonal to the citations it contains, right?
I operate by Crocker's rules[1].