Tolkien uses the words in a funny way, but what he actually means to say in those letters is that he rejects other people feeling the need to absorb the authorial intent. He wants people drawing their own conclusions in relation to the work, he doesn't want to prescribe the one correct reading of the text. That's what Tolkien views Allegory as
I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history – true or feigned– with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.
Tolkien was for sure writing from his experience with war, he just doesn't want you to have to read the text that way. He wants you to interpret the story however you like.
It's your unique tracking code. If I click that link, Google will know you shared a video with me. They want to know who's talking to who on other platforms.
I didn't out myself as a transphobe, in fact I made it very clear that I'm in favour of trans rights by adding an aside about how I disagree with gender abolitionists. The fact that I said recognising gender is a bias doesn't make me a transphobe. And I was worried people would think that, so I made it clear that I think recognising gender is a good bias. But clearly you stopped reading before you got to that point.
It presents center-biased stories as unbiased. There's no such thing as unbiased news. Nearly every news organisation that's ever been founded uses "he" and "she" pronouns (or a localised equivalent) for various people, indicating a male or female gender. Gender is a social construct; it has no objective, or unbiased, existence. Gender only exists because we believe in it and treat it as real. Nearly all news participates in the social construct of gender and is therefore biased in favour of gender. And belief in gender isn't universal. Gender abolitionists would say that gender should not be believed in or participated in. Now, I disagree strongly with gender abolitionists, but I am using their views here to illustrate the point that participating in gender implicitly is a bias. So all news is biased. But Ground News would call a centrist story that uses gendered pronouns unbiased, despite the implicit pushing of socially constructed and subjective identities.
Implicitly affirming gender isn't bad. It's a good thing. But it's not unbiased. News SHOULD be biased. It should be biased in favour of fair and just treatment of all people. You have to be biased, biasless news is impossible. But Ground News lies and says biasless news does exist, and it just so happens to be the news that occupies the center of the overton window. A window that is rapidly drifting rightwards, and a window that Ground News is intentionally following, while telling users to come join them.
If white racists cared about white lives, then the fact that police shoot white people too should mean double the reason to abolish the police for them. But white racists don't care about white lives. They only care about black lives; ending them. "All Lives Matter" may be true, but it's a lie from the people who say it.
Go shit in the woods, naturalist. We should ban anyone who hates progress like you do from using modern medicine. Otherwise we're just letting you naturalists engage in hypocrisy.
What if someone IS unique, though? I would consider Socrates unique. He was so determined, stubborn, and self-assured of his belief that he was a clueless fool that he was willing to die for it. What if someone is a once-a-generation brilliant mind or psychological anomaly? What if someone has a schizospectrum disorder and experiences a reality nobody else lives in?
All browsing was a thing on Reddit too. So I think it’d be fair to say it’s a style of usage some people just prefer or reach for (whether that applies to you)
Sure, for other people, but not me. I never casually browsed r/all. I visited it a couple times, and it was always nonsense I didn't care about. The average Lemmy user is more similar to me than the average Reddit user, so all is usable. Although the average Lemmy user is still a fair bit less similar to me than the average Reddit user of the communities I was subscribed to, so if subscriptions were viable I'd use them on Lemmy too.
Unless one uses “New” or “scaled” sorting, surely it’s the big communities that dominate the All feed such that subscribing could easily achieve the same?
i guess so, but I often scroll long enough to run into the bot-posted reddit reposts with no upvotes, so I'm definitely interested in seeing all the content on Lemmy. Of a more relevant nature is that I don't see posts to remote communities unless a fellow lemmy.ca user is subscribed to them. I ought to subscribe to more remote communities.
Wouldn’t there be a trade off with interest or relevance being less in the All feed?
Sure is, I have no desire to click on about half the posts I see, although that number trends upwards quick when I start scraping the bottom of the barrel. But again, I'm scraping the bottom of the barrel, so it's not like I'm missing any interesting posts.
You left your SI in the link