As a European, it is strange that the boringness of European countries correlates so strongly with the strength of their welfare states. Sweden and Norway are the worst, it is dreary uniformity and everything just looks functional, nothing is pretty.
I don't know which way the causation goes. Either interesting places (Italy) are interesting because chaotic and people do not coordinate things well and there is simply no state capacity for that.
Or a strong welfare state can create boringness. There is a very strong vibe in Sweden and Norway that if it is good enough for everybody else, it should be good enough to you, who the fuck are you to want something special? And then it permeates everything, say, restaurant food. If it was good enough for my coal miner great-grandpa, why not good enough for you?
Interesting. I wonder if egalitarian social democracies tend to have a crabs-in-the-bucket mentality which discourages the ambition necessary to create great art, architecture, etc.
"Marketers think it’s important to convey that books are by people of color in order to market to virtue-signalling white women."
But that's who reads books nowadays! And they're eager to read books by minorities. So if they don't signal that, in a sense, they're doing the writer a disservice.
I think that's reverse causality-- as men read fewer and fewer books, there was less fiction aimed specifically at men. (But not zero, as Royal Road shows us.)
I love the sins of the children story. Reminds me of Orson Scott Card’s speaker for the dead. I think the idea of alien life that transitions between wildly different life stages is really interesting. Plants spend so much energy trying to get their seeds to float in the wind or attach to animals that it seems kinda natural for their seeds to be mobile.
The plagiarism claim against diAngelo is garbage. It amounts to presenting as a paraphrase of a cited author something closer to a direct quote. This is the same stuff the rightwing attack machine dishes out all the time, even while promoting massive lies.
If she has not referenced the secondary sources she used and more or less verbatim copied from, or very mildly paraphrased from, using inline citations (which she does provide for the original texts), she's in the wrong: what should look like "X (1999), as cited by Y, (2002)", becomes "X (1999)". Yes it looks neater, and arguably using someone else's paraphrase or summary of a third party is less of a scholarly transgression that presenting their original ideas as one's own, but it's also incredibly lazy and dishonest. I suspect one of the reasons she's not cited her secondary sources is because best practice is the use original texts rather than secondary reports. But the very minimum in such cases is to significantly paraphrase and restructure. Not verbatim copy.
I disagree. Say I - source A - summarize a point from some source B as "B says that XYZ.", in my own words. If you write "B says that XYZ" without any reference to A (me), then you are plagiarizing my work: I read the text, then filtered and condensed it into "XYZ". You didn't do this work, using my work instead, without providing attribution. Thus, I find calling this plagiarism completely valid.
It also seems like the citations often aren't simply paraphrasing the work of others, but also analyzing and contextualizing it. This requires even more intellectual work than a "mere" summary, and thus makes the plagiarism even worse.
It would have been a different situation if she read source A quoting source B directly (e.g. 'B says: "XYZ".'), and then copied the direct quote without mentioning source A (e.g. 'As stated in source B, "XYZ".') As long as the direct quote is correct and more or less unedited, you merely saved yourself the work of going to the original source. It's still bad and you should still cite A and it probably still officially counts as plagiarism (though who will find out unless the quote is wrong?). But it's far less bad than what she seems to have done.
>and exactly how boring Oslo is to visit
As a European, it is strange that the boringness of European countries correlates so strongly with the strength of their welfare states. Sweden and Norway are the worst, it is dreary uniformity and everything just looks functional, nothing is pretty.
I don't know which way the causation goes. Either interesting places (Italy) are interesting because chaotic and people do not coordinate things well and there is simply no state capacity for that.
Or a strong welfare state can create boringness. There is a very strong vibe in Sweden and Norway that if it is good enough for everybody else, it should be good enough to you, who the fuck are you to want something special? And then it permeates everything, say, restaurant food. If it was good enough for my coal miner great-grandpa, why not good enough for you?
Interesting. I wonder if egalitarian social democracies tend to have a crabs-in-the-bucket mentality which discourages the ambition necessary to create great art, architecture, etc.
"Marketers think it’s important to convey that books are by people of color in order to market to virtue-signalling white women."
But that's who reads books nowadays! And they're eager to read books by minorities. So if they don't signal that, in a sense, they're doing the writer a disservice.
Because fiction for men completely disappeared. Why is no one writing military SF anymore?Something like Prince of Mercenaries.
I think that's reverse causality-- as men read fewer and fewer books, there was less fiction aimed specifically at men. (But not zero, as Royal Road shows us.)
I love the sins of the children story. Reminds me of Orson Scott Card’s speaker for the dead. I think the idea of alien life that transitions between wildly different life stages is really interesting. Plants spend so much energy trying to get their seeds to float in the wind or attach to animals that it seems kinda natural for their seeds to be mobile.
The plagiarism claim against diAngelo is garbage. It amounts to presenting as a paraphrase of a cited author something closer to a direct quote. This is the same stuff the rightwing attack machine dishes out all the time, even while promoting massive lies.
If she has not referenced the secondary sources she used and more or less verbatim copied from, or very mildly paraphrased from, using inline citations (which she does provide for the original texts), she's in the wrong: what should look like "X (1999), as cited by Y, (2002)", becomes "X (1999)". Yes it looks neater, and arguably using someone else's paraphrase or summary of a third party is less of a scholarly transgression that presenting their original ideas as one's own, but it's also incredibly lazy and dishonest. I suspect one of the reasons she's not cited her secondary sources is because best practice is the use original texts rather than secondary reports. But the very minimum in such cases is to significantly paraphrase and restructure. Not verbatim copy.
I disagree. Say I - source A - summarize a point from some source B as "B says that XYZ.", in my own words. If you write "B says that XYZ" without any reference to A (me), then you are plagiarizing my work: I read the text, then filtered and condensed it into "XYZ". You didn't do this work, using my work instead, without providing attribution. Thus, I find calling this plagiarism completely valid.
It also seems like the citations often aren't simply paraphrasing the work of others, but also analyzing and contextualizing it. This requires even more intellectual work than a "mere" summary, and thus makes the plagiarism even worse.
It would have been a different situation if she read source A quoting source B directly (e.g. 'B says: "XYZ".'), and then copied the direct quote without mentioning source A (e.g. 'As stated in source B, "XYZ".') As long as the direct quote is correct and more or less unedited, you merely saved yourself the work of going to the original source. It's still bad and you should still cite A and it probably still officially counts as plagiarism (though who will find out unless the quote is wrong?). But it's far less bad than what she seems to have done.