writer-at-the-table

[writer-at-the-table]

the werewolf essay I'm on now points out that trial transcripts from witch hunts aren't really a good reflection of the popular culture's concept of witches and werewolves, because the confessions tend to be led by what the judges etc. want to hear (especially in cases where confessions are extracted under torture) & what the judges want to hear is based on theological and scholarly discussion, not popular folklore. Which makes sense! But what cracks me up is that the author then points out that a better source of popular culture is in records of slander cases. Which also makes sense! because these are allegations made by everyday people against everyday people, across a pretty broad cross-section of society. so I guess if you really want to know about what people believed you need to read about the kinds of insults and slanging matches they had, and I think that's perfectly delightful

[writer-at-the-table]

you know who’s gay? paul the real estate novelist who never had time for a wife and davey who’s still in the navy and probably will be for life

[writer-at-the-table]

As much debate as there is about tone tags, 90% of the issues would be solved by just typing the word. Like instead of typing /gen or /hj you can just write (genuine) or (handjob) and you'll be doing pretty much the exact same thing.

[writer-at-the-table]

[writer-at-the-table]

I feel as though in the past few years it's becoming more common for me to be interrupted while I'm speaking, and I can't help but wonder if more people are losing a sense of conversational rhythm due to communicating more and more digitally and less and less in person.

When you communicate digitally you don't have to worry about finding the natural rhythm of the conversation, you're not taking away someone else's ability to finish their thought or make their point if you send a message to them while they're still typing. I'm not here to scare monger about the kids and their phones, but it's important that you don't let your skill of finding a conversational rhythm, if you have that skill, atrophy, lest you speak over someone and take away their ability to complete their thought and make their point.

But I also realize that it's really important to specify what I mean by interrupting someone.

When someone says that interrupting is really normal and not considered rude in their community or culture, what they're actually talking about is what's known in linguistics as "cooperative overlap", that or simultaneous talking. Here's an example of cooperative overlap and/or simultaneous talking that you might see in a culture where this is normal and acceptable:

Person A: So guess where I went today? I went to the -

Person B: Oh let me take a wild guess! You went to the shoe store again didn't you?

Person A: That's right, and I got a -

Person C: Oh come on, don't tell you got another pair!

Person A: You know it baby!

Now let's compare that to a different style of interruption, what I like to call "steamrolling"

Person A: So guess where I went today? I went to the -

Person B: UGH did you guys catch the game last night?

Person C: Yeah the refs sucked!

Now, what differences can you see between the first example, aka "cooperative overlapping" vs the second "steamrolling" example?

For one, in the first example Person A is still allowed to make their point, tell their story, and finish their thought. They're not being silenced or completely derailed, and most importantly their conversation partners still seem interested and engaged in what they have to say. In the second example, Person A is being completely derailed and stripped of their chance to finish their thought and make their point, which is unfair to Person A, which is what makes "steamrolling" disrespectful even in many cultures and communities where "cooperative overlapping" would be acceptable.

Now, conversational overlap isn't for everyone, and that's okay, but it makes it awkward and tricky when someone from a community or culture that uses conversational overlap talks to someone who is from a culture that doesn't. For example:

Person A: So the other day I went to -

Person B: Oh my god did you go to that one store?

Person A: Um, no, I went to the movies, and I saw -

Person B: OH did you see that new creepy movie about the aliens?

Person A: No, can I please just finish my story?

Person B: Oh, uh, sorry

Neither person will probably feel great after this conversation. And I'm not here to condemn either conversational styles. I understand why some people see cooperative overlap as a more engaging and exciting conversational style, but I also understand why some people find it frustrating. My mother's family has a cultural background big on conversational overlap, but my father's side of the family ehhh not so much, so I personally grew up seeing these two conversational styles clash a lot.

If you're person A in the above conversation who doesn't like conversational overlap, that's totally fine, I'm personally not a big fan of it either only because I have a terrible memory, so when someone disrupts my flow I usually end up completely forgetting what I want to say. Just try to recognize the difference between cooperative overlap vs steamrolling. If someone is just trying to cooperatively overlap with you, patiently and politely tell them something along the lines of "sorry I have a terrible memory so if I don't finish I'll forget what I'm trying to say". But it's generally a good idea to be more patient and understanding with conversational overlap than steamrolling.

If you're someone who cooperatively overlaps and you encounter someone who isn't a fan of it, try not to take it personally, maybe like me they have a horrible memory and will forget what they're trying to say if they get side tracked.

But what I meant earlier about conversational rhythm is that too often a lot of interrupting comes from not realizing the other person wasn't finished speaking.

For example, personal A wants to say "so the other day I went hiking, and I saw a fox" some people might not recognize when person A is actually finished speaking, typically they assume as soon as they've heard a complete clause that means the thought is finished, so the conversation goes like

Person A: So the other day I went hiking -

Person B: OH I went hiking a few weeks ago with my girlfriend but it was so slippery out!

Person C: Oh how is your girlfriend doing by the way?

Person B: She's doing great! How's your partner doing?

Do you see how this style of interruption, unlike cooperative overlap, also derails Person A and deprives Person A of a chance to finish what they want to say? It's not quite steamrolling, and often just comes from a lack of rhythm or understanding. As a general rule, if you want to avoid interrupting someone, pause for a few seconds after you think they're finished in case they aren't actually finished. This way you avoid accidentally depriving someone of the chance to finish what they want to say and completing their thought.

We should never be too eager to assume someone has finished making their point because you never know what someone might actually be trying to say, and if you cut someone off before they make their point you can miss important context. For example:

Person A: I don't think I see stray cats here -

Person B: AHA BULL FUCKING SHIT! I totally saw a stray cat the other day!

Person A: I was going to say as much as in other places if you had let me finish?

Or:

Person A: I hate when it's hot out. When I was a kid it was usually around 25 or 30 degrees Celsius in the summers -

Person B: OH come one don't be such a wimpy little baby! 25-30 degrees isn't even that warm! I've totally seen WAY hotter summers than that!

Person A: Uh, that's what I was going to say if you'd let me finish, the summers were pretty mild when I was a kid, but they're a lot hotter now . .

Do you see how in both conversations Person B was too eager to assume Person A had finished making their point and ended up missing important context? If person B had only paused and waited for Person A to finish making their point, they wouldn't have ended up making an ass of themselves to put it frankly. This style of interruption can make you come across as eager to dominate and "one up" other people, which frankly a lot of people find obnoxious and exhausting. This is different than cooperative overlapping because it comes from a place of wanting to correct or one-up your conversation partner, rather than play and/or build into what they're saying, which is why I'd argue it's closer to steamrolling.

Good conversational rhythm ideally means everyone is allowed to finish their thought and make their point, whether or not that includes overlapping or even simultaneous talking. If you're not sure someone has finished their thought, pause a few seconds to make sure they've had the chance to complete their thought, less you miss important context. OR, if you do interject, it should be about building/playing into what they're saying rather than derailing/steamrolling them.

What's important to keep in mind is that it's often a matter of power and respect when someone is or isn't allowed to finish their thought and make their point. If someone is unable to finish their thought or make their point before getting steamrolled, they're going to feel like their input to the conversation isn't valued or important, and that's never a good feeling.

[writer-at-the-table]

I originally wrote this back in 2019 in response to someone saying:

So, let me get this straight... the entire religion (of Judaism) is built around legal loopholes? Is that what I’m gathering here? (Feel free to correct me!)

And it remains relevant to people (gentiles) who characterize Judaism as rules lawyering or all about loopholes or worse, who imply we are trying to be "sneaky" or "pull one over on God."

My answer:

the religion is built around living in an ethical society per our contract (covenant) with G-d. but you can’t just have a bunch of words without putting them to use, & understanding them in practice, you know? the fulfillment of the covenant is a living discussion.

it’s not legal loopholes, because a loophole is often an inadequacy in the law that gets taken advantage of, but these are all built-in, part of our understanding. In this case, we have a contract (covenant), and we’re going to put it to use in every way possible, explore every inch of it, turn it inside out, and apply it to real life examples, define the parameters, argue those definitions, and then survey the conclusions.

I can say “you need to say the evening shema (a prayer) in the evening” but we can’t just say that, we need to explore a bunch of related things, like:

when in the evening does this happen? is there a difference between twilight and evening? if we say the evening prayer can be said from the time the priests partake of teruma, then when is that? if it’s the first watch of the evening, how many watches are there? if you were out all night for a wedding, but it’s not yet dawn, is it too late to recite the evening prayer? — IN SEVERAL THOUSAND YEARS, KE$HA WILL WRITE TIK TOK, AND WE’LL NEED TO KNOW WHAT TO DO IN CASE OF PARTYING UNTIL YOU SEE SUNLIGHT!

— when do they (the priests) ritually bathe in preparation for this [taking of teruma]? what about when poor people who cannot afford extra candles - do we consider how early they eat an evening meal in order to make sure they can afford the light [when we define evening]?

why did we discuss evening prayer before morning prayer? why does torah give us night before day? when is bedtime for most people? can we say the evening prayer until dawn? if yes, people might put off the prayer until dawn, which could lead to laziness or mistakes.

Also, when is dawn? but more prudently at the moment, when is evening? evening is when the stars are visible, but...how many stars? also, if you are lying alone in a dark house and can’t see the sky, how do you determine if it is too early or too late for your evening shema?

and that whole discussion is from the beginning of the Talmud, in its hyper-condensed form. That is what we do.

It’s not a series of loopholes and ways to weasel out of doing something. It's an intentional exploration of how something is done right, what doing it means, how we can accomplish it.

nothing gets taken for granted, everything is questioned, debated, discussed until it is understood enough to be applicable. and there may be lots of ways to understand.

if someone sees this line of thinking and goes “ah, loopholes to get out of it/wiggle away from it,” then you are mistaking lacework for loopholes.

....and if Kesha sees sunlight, it is now too late for her to say her bedtime shema. she should recite morning shema instead.

(note I think per anon my original phrasing was lacework, not loopholes, but maybe I edited for clarity later? Very possible, I'm a chronic editor.)

[writer-at-the-table]

Buffy the Vampire Slayer

4x12 | "A New Man"

[writer-at-the-table]

as someone with aragorn's kind of face framing layers i just know the front pieces are hanging in his eyes all day every day... "my path is hidden from me" you are 4 bobby pins away from utter clarity.

[writer-at-the-table]

'How to focus on writing your book' original drawing. This and a few other artworks are now up at www.tomgauld.com/art-for-sale

[writer-at-the-table]

Fifteen!

gonna do this for each of the nu who doctors, wanted to practice having a consistent artstyle so more coming up!

[writer-at-the-table]

god this tickles me

(OP's tiktok here)

[writer-at-the-table]

didnt realize this was an ad at first so i just assumed that was somebody's advice. no1 art tip... hunt monsters...

[writer-at-the-table]

After many years of selective breeding, they've finally developed a breed of phoenix that, rather than self-immolating itself into ash, instead roasts itself to a perfect internal 165° F while burning off all the feathers, resulting in an instant, ready-to-eat poultry dinner.

[writer-at-the-table]

(sighing) Nevermind...

Stargate SG-1 3x07 - Deadman Switch

[writer-at-the-table]

ok well this blew my mind

This is also true with filmmakers. Western filmmakers pan their cameras mostly left to right and Iranian filmmakers do right to left.

[writer-at-the-table]

Hey so I see folks with alot of the same issues, and alot of other people going "hey man its not like that" and the first group going "man your crazy". And from personal experiance it became very suddenly Not Like That once I moved 2000 miles away from my hometown so i gotta ask

[writer-at-the-table]

wizard college is going to kill me I swear to god. I just saw someone without a component satchel reach into their pocket and pull out a handful of LOOSE tapioca to use as a substitute for blood in their fell ritual. and it worked. I've never been so fucking mad.