>The tattoos are not just decorative; they carry deep cultural significance, marking the individual's status, achievements, and clan affiliation. That's exactly what decorations do. There is nothing inherently derogatory about the word "decoration". It is a neutral term encompassing all kinds of adornment and accessory that obviously carry some kind of meaning to them or else they wouldn't exist. This retarded cliche comes at the crossroads of two unfortunately wayward groups: classic naturalists of the internet generation and social science trying desperately to embellish their work and 'uplift' their subjects.
Irritating rhetorical tics :
Anonymous :
11 days ago :
No.4308
>>4713
>>4308 (OP)
That last sentence doesn't say anything at all.
>>4715>>4308 (OP)
You're missing the "just" in "just decorative". Something that's just decorative isn't intended to convey any information. Something that isn't just decorative can both convey information and be decorative.
>>4726>>4715
I think >>4308 (OP) means that there is no such thing as just decorative, decoration always conveys social/cultural meaning.
Anonymous :
11 days ago :
No.4311
>>4317 >>4811
>>4311
I'm in undergrad and in shitty rough drafts when I want to phone my argument in I'll just slap down that X "organizes" or "serves as a lens for interrogating" Y and nobody has ever called me out on it.
I thought you were talking about the sentence-level rhetorical scheme. By the end of grad school most dissertators have developed a small selection of complex-ish sentence schemes for gluing ideas together. They reappear on every page of every chapter. Take away these verbal tics and you'll suddenly see dissertations composed of nothing but a string of keywords.
>>4310
That's some AI phrasing btw.
It was/is extremely common in many parts of academia as I and >>4311I thought you were talking about the sentence-level rhetorical scheme. By the end of grad school most dissertators have developed a small selection of complex-ish sentence schemes for gluing ideas together. They reappear on every page of every chapter. Take away these verbal tics and you'll suddenly see dissertations composed of nothing but a string of keywords.
reference. Many social science/political science texts do read like LLM spew.
>>4308 (OP)
That last sentence doesn't say anything at all.
Anonymous :
3 days ago :
No.4715
>>4726
>>4715
I think >>4308 (OP) means that there is no such thing as just decorative, decoration always conveys social/cultural meaning.
>>4739>>4715
>Something that's just decorative isn't intended to convey any information.
Then why does it exist in the first place? Literally everything intentionally created by humans has "information" embedded in it.
>>4308 (OP)
You're missing the "just" in "just decorative". Something that's just decorative isn't intended to convey any information. Something that isn't just decorative can both convey information and be decorative.
Anonymous :
3 days ago :
No.4726
>>4746
>>4726
>>4739
Sure, anything created by humans contains information of a sort, but that doesn't mean it's created with the intent to convey information. There's a difference between some godless savage getting a tattoo that to convey their tribal affiliation and me getting the same tattoo because I saw a picture of it and thought it looked cool. In the latter case, any information conveyed is incidental.
>>4715
>>4308 (OP)
You're missing the "just" in "just decorative". Something that's just decorative isn't intended to convey any information. Something that isn't just decorative can both convey information and be decorative.
I think >>4308 (OP) means that there is no such thing as just decorative, decoration always conveys social/cultural meaning.
Anonymous :
3 days ago :
No.4730
>>4737
Chapeau >>4730
After a while you start to recognize this style ("pomo-euphuism"? «bougeois-gentilhomme-isme»?) as a kind of throat-clearing. The academic writer is winding up to the sentence that s/he actually wants to say but -- and this is what separates the professionals from the amateurs -- s/he keeps the fingers moving while s/he thinks and builds word-count on a foundation of partly-formed sentences.
Each sentence gets a paragraph of buildup. Every argument is a string of sentence-sized assertions. The practices of writing paragraphs and syllogisms disappear beneath the sands of time.
In terms of sentence structure, academics constantly engage in a kind of compulsive reptition; this repetition is not just the resaying of things (already) said, but the actual restatement (from Latin 'restatus': re [re] + status [state]) of an inherently verbal stream (communication) in different language. The reiteration of basic ideas is fundamental to their sense of superiority; basic to their sense of fundamentalness; superior to their fundament of basity.
Anonymous :
3 days ago :
No.4737
>>4743
>>4737
I am forced to read these screeds and I often have to read them several times to understand what the overall point of the screed is, and often it's some banalisme which could have been explained in clear language on half a sheet of A4 paper. I have also thought this turgid prose is a grotesque, prolonged throat-clearing: it's like jerking off in that a lot of effort goes in but between author and reader nothing much is achieved
I had the advantage of a classical education and was told that writing should be more or less like speaking: though it may be more complex or sinuous than speech, being composed ahead of time, the ideas should basically unspool themselves in the same way the spoken word does. One test for good writing is that, if you cross out a sentence, the meaning is actually changed.
Chapeau >>4730
In terms of sentence structure, academics constantly engage in a kind of compulsive reptition; this repetition is not just the resaying of things (already) said, but the actual restatement (from Latin 'restatus': re [re] + status [state]) of an inherently verbal stream (communication) in different language. The reiteration of basic ideas is fundamental to their sense of superiority; basic to their sense of fundamentalness; superior to their fundament of basity.
After a while you start to recognize this style ("pomo-euphuism"? «bougeois-gentilhomme-isme»?) as a kind of throat-clearing. The academic writer is winding up to the sentence that s/he actually wants to say but -- and this is what separates the professionals from the amateurs -- s/he keeps the fingers moving while s/he thinks and builds word-count on a foundation of partly-formed sentences.
Each sentence gets a paragraph of buildup. Every argument is a string of sentence-sized assertions. The practices of writing paragraphs and syllogisms disappear beneath the sands of time.
Honestly this is why I try not to read anything academic by anyone who defended a dissertation after 1985.
I only want to read the crisp style of people who got psychologically abused and tormented by a monster of a 𝔇𝔬𝔨𝔱𝔬𝔯𝔳𝔞𝔱𝔢𝔯.
Anonymous :
3 days ago :
No.4739
>>4744
>>4739
T.
>>4746>>4726
>>4739
Sure, anything created by humans contains information of a sort, but that doesn't mean it's created with the intent to convey information. There's a difference between some godless savage getting a tattoo that to convey their tribal affiliation and me getting the same tattoo because I saw a picture of it and thought it looked cool. In the latter case, any information conveyed is incidental.
>>4715
>>4308 (OP)
You're missing the "just" in "just decorative". Something that's just decorative isn't intended to convey any information. Something that isn't just decorative can both convey information and be decorative.
>Something that's just decorative isn't intended to convey any information.
Then why does it exist in the first place? Literally everything intentionally created by humans has "information" embedded in it.
This isn't even from a paper or anything btw it's from a stupid Bored Panda listicle kek
>>4737
Chapeau >>4730
After a while you start to recognize this style ("pomo-euphuism"? «bougeois-gentilhomme-isme»?) as a kind of throat-clearing. The academic writer is winding up to the sentence that s/he actually wants to say but -- and this is what separates the professionals from the amateurs -- s/he keeps the fingers moving while s/he thinks and builds word-count on a foundation of partly-formed sentences.
Each sentence gets a paragraph of buildup. Every argument is a string of sentence-sized assertions. The practices of writing paragraphs and syllogisms disappear beneath the sands of time.
I am forced to read these screeds and I often have to read them several times to understand what the overall point of the screed is, and often it's some banalisme which could have been explained in clear language on half a sheet of A4 paper. I have also thought this turgid prose is a grotesque, prolonged throat-clearing: it's like jerking off in that a lot of effort goes in but between author and reader nothing much is achieved
I had the advantage of a classical education and was told that writing should be more or less like speaking: though it may be more complex or sinuous than speech, being composed ahead of time, the ideas should basically unspool themselves in the same way the spoken word does. One test for good writing is that, if you cross out a sentence, the meaning is actually changed.
Anonymous :
3 days ago :
No.4746
>>4749
>>4746
> In the latter case, any information conveyed is incidental.
Not really, but I get what you mean. Intent isn't that important, your shitty tattoo still tells about your affiliation, although it's not an overt one.
Anyway, that's way too much time spent deciphering this prose.
>>4726
>>4715
I think >>4308 (OP) means that there is no such thing as just decorative, decoration always conveys social/cultural meaning.
>>4739>>4715
>Something that's just decorative isn't intended to convey any information.
Then why does it exist in the first place? Literally everything intentionally created by humans has "information" embedded in it.
Sure, anything created by humans contains information of a sort, but that doesn't mean it's created with the intent to convey information. There's a difference between some godless savage getting a tattoo that to convey their tribal affiliation and me getting the same tattoo because I saw a picture of it and thought it looked cool. In the latter case, any information conveyed is incidental.
>>4746
>>4726
>>4739
Sure, anything created by humans contains information of a sort, but that doesn't mean it's created with the intent to convey information. There's a difference between some godless savage getting a tattoo that to convey their tribal affiliation and me getting the same tattoo because I saw a picture of it and thought it looked cool. In the latter case, any information conveyed is incidental.
> In the latter case, any information conveyed is incidental.
Not really, but I get what you mean. Intent isn't that important, your shitty tattoo still tells about your affiliation, although it's not an overt one.
Anyway, that's way too much time spent deciphering this prose.
Anonymous :
2 days ago :
No.4811
>>4820
I literally failed out of university because I could not sufficiently write this way (I kept getting marked on "writing too much prose") >>4811
>>4311
I thought you were talking about the sentence-level rhetorical scheme. By the end of grad school most dissertators have developed a small selection of complex-ish sentence schemes for gluing ideas together. They reappear on every page of every chapter. Take away these verbal tics and you'll suddenly see dissertations composed of nothing but a string of keywords.
I'm in undergrad and in shitty rough drafts when I want to phone my argument in I'll just slap down that X "organizes" or "serves as a lens for interrogating" Y and nobody has ever called me out on it.
>4811
Lel
I literally failed out of university because I could not sufficiently write this way (I kept getting marked on "writing too much prose") >>4811
>>4311
I'm in undergrad and in shitty rough drafts when I want to phone my argument in I'll just slap down that X "organizes" or "serves as a lens for interrogating" Y and nobody has ever called me out on it.