Does anyone here believe in ghosts?—

      I think I may have seen one when I was a kid. My parents explained it away as a hallucination brought on by stress. I remembered that again when I had a recent experience of just feeling uneasy when I looked at a house. Is that superstition, or does anyone think it is possible that they exist?

—Boo

Posted at a quarter past six in the evening on February 22nd, 2015.  link   hide  
In an infinite multiverse, all things exist somewhere.
—Anonymous
Posted at half past eight in the evening on February 22nd, 2015.  link  
I definitely believe in ghosts. I have family members who have seen them. We know there are lots of things out there that are very real that we can't see, that we don't consciously experience (like microwaves and ultraviolet light!). I think the idea of spectral energy, which sometimes lingers, makes a lot of sense.
—Anonymous
Posted at a quarter to nine in the evening on February 22nd, 2015.  link  
Superstition for sure. The only thing haunting you is yourself. "Spectral energy" is in no way comparable to microwaves or UV light-- those things have sources, are detectable, and our senses DO detect them (in the form of heat). Nobody ever got a sunburn from a ghost.
—Fantasies are comforting and sometimes fun to entertain, but pseudo-science is stupid and damaging.
Posted at half past ten in the evening on February 22nd, 2015.  link  
Ghosts don't exist in the "real" world, but that doesn't mean that they can't exist in the perceived world. Life is a narrative, write it how you will.
—Anonymous
Posted at a quarter to eleven in the evening on February 22nd, 2015.  link  
^^Science is observation of the physical world, which is the world perceived by the dominant portion of humanity. Pseudo-science is observation of any world that is perceived by a non-dominant portion of humanity. Science and pseudo-science both exist because of logic, and logic necessitates that all perceivers and all worlds exist. What is real and not real, stupid and intelligent, damaging and helpful is determined by what kind of perceiver a given perceiver is. Superstition is perception beyond what is defined as good by the world one perceives.

Ghosts exist because all things exist.
—Anonymous
Posted at half past two in the morning on February 23rd, 2015.  link  
^ Logic does not necessitate that anything exists except logic. And the kind of "existence" you are talking about (non-trancedental individual perception) is different than the kind of existence that the person you are responding to is talking about. If you're going to address someone's point, at least do it in the language they are using.
—Anonymous
Posted at nine o'clock in the morning on February 23rd, 2015.  link  
^Logic, in the sense of basic dynamics, necessitate that all things exist because all things are contained within those basic dynamics and the basic dynamics themselves always cancel each other out to zero. Transcendental perception is an individual perception because all perception is individual. All things exist because any existence is finite, which necessitates that other existences must exist in relation to it, ad infinitum.
—Anonymous
Posted at a quarter past one in the afternoon on February 23rd, 2015.  link  
^ plz express formally in logic kthnx
—Anonymous
Posted at a quarter to four in the afternoon on February 23rd, 2015.  link  
∃A∴ghosts
(what ^^ is trying to say, best as i can tell)
—Anonymous
Posted at a quarter to four in the afternoon on February 23rd, 2015.  link  
Yeah, that shit is real man.
—Anonymous
Posted at seven o'clock in the evening on March 3rd, 2015.  link  
^ i believe you more than any other poster here
—Anonymous
Posted at a quarter past ten in the evening on March 3rd, 2015.  link  
Pseudoscience is parting from unfounded premises that are not observable in the world, and coming to conclusions that are also equally vacuous.

Science is a human construct, that we build upon from premises that we observe, and come to conclusions that are provable and whose behavior we strive to delimit as exactly as possible.

Logic is the laws of thought through which we can manipulate information and acquire new insight. Logic can be applied to almost any set of ideas, save for monster sets as demonstrated by Russell's paradox (Sets whose condition is to not be a member of such set).

Logic is not related to the physical world at all as it would be incredibly stupid to prove a property of logic or mathematics by looking at how things work in real life (trust me on this, it doesn't work). Logic only deals with the structuring of thoughts, or analytic truths.
That you can make affirmations such as "if things that I see are real and I saw a ghost, therefore ghosts are real" and they are perfectly valid does not mean it is true by "logic", it just means that if your premises were right, which sadly they aren't, you would have used logic to come to the conclusion of the existence of ghosts.


What you are saying, seems to me, the equivalent of "If we can name something, it means it exists". Which is a good concept if you're into intellectual masturbation, or something really pretentious and dumb if your reasoning is sound.



What you say when you believe in ghosts is "I believe in something which has no sound evidence for its existence and whose phenomena is impossible to reproduce under any kind of scientific rigor but I think I saw one so fuck science".




—Anonymous
Posted at a quarter to one in the afternoon on March 4th, 2015.  link  
differends, man, differends. you can say that the earth orbits the sun but i'm still gonna call it a sunrise. if i wanna label the phenomenon i experience "ghost", that ain't hurt no-one either.
—Anonymous
Posted at a quarter past one in the afternoon on March 4th, 2015.  link  
"Intellectual masturbation" describes the attitude I get from STEM people basically all of the time. "We have decided what is rational, we have made value judgements based on this despite that being way outside of our purview, and we have managed to get all the developed world to accept these value judgements because we build their computers."

Question a rationalist's actions or motivations? You must be a vaccine-hating scam artist who wants children to die from homeopathy, you tarot-reading feng-shuiing Nazi.

It's not ghosts that set our consciousnesses into places they are not supposed to go. It was the Enlightenment.
—Anonymous
Posted at three o'clock in the afternoon on March 4th, 2015.  link  
^^^Let's cut through your academic babble, you stupid fuck. To exist is to have limits. To have limits means there is something besides you. The something besides you has to have limits. You plus the something besides you has to have limits. You plus the something besides you plus the area around you plus the something besides you has limits. There must always be more things, which necessitates that everything exists. You can keep going, folding up things into dimension after dimension, forever.

What you say when you don't believe in ghosts is "I don't believe in something even though by definition it must exist, because my naive realistic perspective leads me to believe that if something doesn't seem to exist in a certain way that it doesn't exist, period." You then throw out words like "evidence" and "rigor" without realizing that they only hold up in a certain world in an infinity of worlds.
—Anonymous
Posted at eight o'clock in the evening on March 5th, 2015.  link  
Your argument has a few holes, mate:

Firstly, i don't know where you get the idea that there must always be more things. Just because the thing you exist in has limits does not necessitate that there exists something outside.

Even if there must always be more things, these things need not exhaust possibility. The set of all even numbers is infinite, but that doesn't mean it contains every number.

Furthermore, even if everything ~did~ exist, that is not to say it exists in the practical sense. Whether or not ghosts exist 50000000 light-years away is not the question; we only really want to know / care if they exist on Earth (or perhaps the perceivable universe), a bounded area.
—Anonymous
Posted at a quarter to eleven in the evening on March 5th, 2015.  link  
^The thing you exist in can't exist unless something exists outside of it, because otherwise it would have nothing to exist in relation to, even if that something is "vacuum", 'void", "non-space", etc.

If there must always be more things all possible things must exist because otherwise you couldn't always have more things in all "directions" — you could have the set of all even numbers, but because that set exists it can't actually contain all even numbers, it can only contain a variable designated as "all even numbers", and as such can itself be placed into another set (again modifying definitions by shifting perspectives), which can be placed into another, etc.

The nature of existence is such that, by definition, from a certain perspective things exist simultaneously in the same space, and are warped out according to the dimensions perceived by the observer of those things. So ghosts may not exist in the practical sense, but the practical sense is just one perspective among countless, and by definition can never be the only perspective. Even the bounded area of the Earth or the perceivable universe necessarily has ghosts if that bounded area is perceived by a perceiver who can perceive them there.
—Anonymous
Posted at a quarter to twelve in the morning on March 6th, 2015.  link  
Above poster is a frustrated failed philosophy major.
—Anonymous
Posted at a quarter to one in the afternoon on March 6th, 2015.  link  
Also your comments make literally negative sense, lmao. The set containing the even numbers has ALL THE EVEN NUMBERS, that's literally its definition. It's not "a variable". You can get away with that shit in the humanities department but not in mathematics.

"The nature of existence is such that, by definition, from a certain perspective things exist simultaneously in the same space, and are warped out according to the dimensions perceived by the observer of those things."
You keep using the word "definition". I don't think it means what you think it means. Who "defined existence"? And how did he come across the definition of our own universe? is he god?
—Anonymous
Posted at one o'clock in the afternoon on March 6th, 2015.  link  
A set is a thing. A thing is finite. A finite thing cannot contain ALL THE EVEN NUMBERS because ALL THE EVEN NUMBERS is not a thing. What it actually contains is ALL THE EVEN NUMBERS THAT YOU'RE THINKING OF AT THE MOMENT.

Existence and definition are both things. Things are finite. "Existence" is defined by whatever perspective is using the term. Individuals define the term, groups define the term, societies define the term, etc.
—Anonymous
Posted at a quarter to three in the afternoon on March 6th, 2015.  link  
Be nice, you guys.
—Anonymous
Posted at a quarter past three in the afternoon on March 6th, 2015.  link  
"u cant have the set of all the even numbers bc sets are finite"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_set
—Anonymous
Posted at a quarter to four in the afternoon on March 6th, 2015.  link  
^^^ …and you defined the term wrong, lmao
—Anonymous
Posted at a quarter to four in the afternoon on March 6th, 2015.  link  
No, ALL THINGS ARE FINITE. An infinite set is a thing, because otherwise we couldn't be talking about it.

An infinite thing can't exist — it has to have boundaries of some kind. You can go on about what the definition of something is, but A THING CAN'T HAVE A DEFINITION WITHOUT EXISTING, AND TO EXIST IS TO BE LIMITED. Look at the word "definition".
—Anonymous
Posted at a quarter to four in the afternoon on March 6th, 2015.  link  

Favorite person at Whitman:—

      !

—gooo

Posted at a quarter to seven in the evening on February 22nd, 2015.  link   hide  
that one kid with blue eyes - I don't know his name though, and I know that's really vague
—Anonymous
Posted at a quarter past seven in the evening on February 22nd, 2015.  link  
most of the lady sweets, especially Melanie.
—Anonymous
Posted at a quarter past seven in the evening on February 22nd, 2015.  link  
this is pretty demeaning, because I know no one is going to post my name.... :(
—whittie guy
Posted at a quarter past seven in the evening on February 22nd, 2015.  link  
OP, why don't you post someone?
—Anonymous
Posted at a quarter past seven in the evening on February 22nd, 2015.  link  
Sueann. She's one cool lady.
—Anonymous
Posted at a quarter to eight in the evening on February 22nd, 2015.  link  
Sarah Glass is wonderful.
—Anonymous
Posted at a quarter to eight in the evening on February 22nd, 2015.  link  
lets get some more names so that more people have their day made. After all, life's to short to not tell someone their awesome.
—Anonymous
Posted at eight o'clock in the evening on February 22nd, 2015.  link  
Luis the North custodian!

Also Robby Brothers.
—Anonymous
Posted at half past ten in the evening on February 22nd, 2015.  link  
Fran! Lyman Dining Hall Fran!
—Anonymous
Posted at eight o'clock in the morning on February 23rd, 2015.  link  
keep this going~!!! It's already made a bunch of people's days!!!!!!!!!
—Anonymous
Posted at half past five in the evening on February 24th, 2015.  link  
Katie Gillespie!
—Anonymous
Posted at a quarter to seven in the evening on February 24th, 2015.  link  
Paige Organick
—Anonymous
Posted at half past ten in the evening on February 24th, 2015.  link  
Arden Robinette!
—Anonymous
Posted at half past ten in the evening on February 24th, 2015.  link  
Marra Clay!
—Anonymous
Posted at a quarter to eleven in the evening on February 24th, 2015.  link  
weird how there a so few guys on this list...
—Anonymous
Posted at a quarter past ten in the morning on February 25th, 2015.  link  
Jeffrey Maher!
—Fixed it for you
Posted at a quarter past four in the afternoon on February 25th, 2015.  link  
Tino Mori
—Anonymous
Posted at five o'clock in the evening on February 25th, 2015.  link  
Caleb Moosman
—Anonymous
Posted at half past nine in the evening on February 25th, 2015.  link  
Seana Minuth!
—Anonymous
Posted at half past nine in the evening on March 1st, 2015.  link  
Alec Baldwin!
—Anonymous
Posted at a quarter past seven in the morning on March 2nd, 2015.  link  
YES Robby Brothers.
—Anonymous
Posted at a quarter to nine in the morning on March 2nd, 2015.  link  
me
—;)
Posted at half past two in the afternoon on March 2nd, 2015.  link  
^ yeah, you rock!
—Anonymous
Posted at half past four in the afternoon on March 2nd, 2015.  link  
Andrew Schoenborn!!
—Anonymous
Posted at half past one in the afternoon on March 3rd, 2015.  link  
Tara Mcc! Wonderful human!
—Anonymous
Posted at half past one in the afternoon on March 3rd, 2015.  link  
I am defiantly not homophobic, but I think it's interesting to note how many people post the names of homosexuals, simply because these people are homosexuals. Of course, they endure more suffering than most, but is it's worth discussing whether that merits being a favorite person.
—im about to get a lot of shit
Posted at a quarter past four in the afternoon on March 3rd, 2015.  link  
...I think you just might be being homophobic. Or at least cynical. Everyone can be expected to have a different favorite person. If you don't see the people being posted as being so great, well, that's you, not them. You really can't speak for the other posters.

Additionally, I really didn't notice a strong LGBT trend, but I also don't know that many of the people posted about.

But, keeping up the happy favorite-people trend, Gene Hoffman!
—Anonymous
Posted at a quarter past four in the afternoon on March 3rd, 2015.  link  
I'm sorry, but how do you know that they posted certain people "simply because they are homosexuals"? That's a completely unfounded statement.
—But, to continue the actual purpose of this thread, Liz Clagget!
Posted at half past four in the afternoon on March 3rd, 2015.  link  
To the first poster brave enough to voice his mind: it is a symptom of the tokenization of people at Whitman. Just one of many reasons why I hate this college.
—Anonymous
Posted at half past four in the afternoon on March 3rd, 2015.  link  
I didn't know any of those people were gay. Most of them are just genuinely good people. (I say most because I don't know a few of these people)
—Anonymous
Posted at a quarter to seven in the evening on March 3rd, 2015.  link  
"The first poster brave enough to voice his mind"--how can you say that?? You don't know that.
I don't see a symptom of tokenization here... I see an epidemic of creating imaginary issues so you can push your own self dissatisfaction with yourself onto the school as a whole and ignore your own issues that you need to deal with. Fucks sake.
—Anonymous
Posted at seven o'clock in the evening on March 3rd, 2015.  link  
This is why I can't stand this site. Somebody tries to post one positive thing-- one! -- and some asshole decides he wants to start a flame war.

This is why we can't have nice things. Every other goddamn thread is already filled with negativity-- put your vitriol there. Let's just have one thread where the guiding principle is "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all."
—Sick of everybody's shit, just trying to make folks happy
Posted at nine o'clock in the evening on March 3rd, 2015.  link  
^^here here. calm down peeps, we're trying to compliment people. don't see an issue in every single thing.
—Anonymous
Posted at ten o'clock in the evening on March 3rd, 2015.  link  
Welcome to the Internet
—Everyone's an asshole
Posted at ten o'clock in the evening on March 3rd, 2015.  link  
hey, not everyone.
—see this thread for examples
Posted at a quarter past ten in the evening on March 3rd, 2015.  link  
I love frat people. They get a lot of shit from Whitties and still they host parties for all the campus to partake in.
—Anonymous
Posted at a quarter to one in the afternoon on March 4th, 2015.  link  
Fiona Bennitt!
—Anonymous
Posted at a quarter to one in the afternoon on March 5th, 2015.  link  
Luke Risley is a beautiful human being. And funnier than a sack of cats and potatoes.
—Anonymous
Posted at a quarter past four in the afternoon on March 5th, 2015.  link  
This is random, but to the girl I saw in velvet pants today--your pants are awesome!
—That's all I wanted to say
Posted at a quarter past eight in the evening on March 5th, 2015.  link  
The difference in tone between this incredibly long thread and the incredibly long ghostthread is beautiful.
—Anonymous
Posted at a quarter to four in the afternoon on March 6th, 2015.  link  

Songwriters?—

      Searching for somebody to write songs for my band to play. Email if you're down.

—-forever a cover band

Posted at half past twelve in the evening on March 5th, 2015.  link   hide  
What kind of genre are you interested in?
—Anonymous
Posted at a quarter past eight in the evening on March 5th, 2015.  link  

NO MORE WAR—

      Please.

—especially on whitman encounters

Posted at ten o'clock in the morning on March 5th, 2015.  link   hide  
http://tinyurl.com/kw3myjl
—Anonymous
Posted at a quarter past five in the evening on March 5th, 2015.  link  

Why is it so hard to find a roommate—

      Im a Sophmore male thats looking for a place to live in a house next fall, if anyone needs a roommate contact me. I can cook!

—-Abandoned by friends for study abroad

Posted at half past seven in the evening on March 4th, 2015.  link   hide  

ASWC—

      When do we hear the results of the divestment vote?

—students

Posted at a quarter to four in the afternoon on March 3rd, 2015.  link   hide  
Imma say probably after the polls close at 8, at the very least. Calm yer oxen, bucko, the tide's still high.
—I have been playing too much Oregon Trail
Posted at a quarter past four in the afternoon on March 3rd, 2015.  link  
Are we going to get more detailed info? like the percent of yes and no votes?
—Anonymous
Posted at ten o'clock in the evening on March 3rd, 2015.  link  
^^Yes Oregon Trail yes
—Anonymous
Posted at twelve o'clock in the morning on March 4th, 2015.  link  

Question about divestment—

      I'm all for divestment, but I'm unsure about what it would mean for tuition rates if we did divest. Does anyone have any info on what kind of impact it would have?

—Curious

Posted at five o'clock in the evening on March 2nd, 2015.  link   hide  
I'm guessing tuition would go up but not by much, say maybe another 5-10% on top of the usual increase we see each year. Problem is, 5-10% is an increase many students will hate, myself included. I see divestment as mostly a feel-good circlejerk, we could do better to lower tuition by cutting budgets for other things, like expensive art pieces that people don't look at or similar feel-good administrative salaried positions dealing with sustainability and diversity.

Read the faculty's response to calls for divestment (published last year, not sure if available online) for some better data on why it's rather pointless.
—Student loans are no fun
Posted at half past seven in the evening on March 2nd, 2015.  link  
My assumptions (and general feelings about divestment) are the similar to the above poster. In theory, I'm for divestment, but considering the possible implications for the Whitman community, I'm unsure.

Will it affect the salaries of the people who work to maintain campus grounds/buildings, at Bon App, etc.? What about financial aid and scholarship opportunities for prospective students that couldn't afford Whitman otherwise? And, that said, could it affect the economic/racial/ethnic diversity on campus?

Environmentalism is already seen as an upper-middle-class-white-person issue. Divestment, to me, seems like a pretty good representation of that. But, of course, I'm no expert and would love to hear what someone more involved/informed about Divestment has to say.
—Anonymous
Posted at nine o'clock in the evening on March 2nd, 2015.  link  
I see environmentalism as an everybody issue, but I don't think that a divestment by Whitman will at all influence the horrible reality that is climate change.
—Student loans are no fun person
Posted at a quarter to ten in the evening on March 2nd, 2015.  link  
I agree that the issue needs to be an everybody issue. What I meant to say was that while climate change will affect every creature on this planet, it will not affect them equally or in the same way. And I again agree with you that Divestment at Whitman would do nothing to affect climate change (though it'll probably boost some egos).
—above anon
Posted at half past eleven in the evening on March 2nd, 2015.  link  
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IDBVo0B0SLOLxjFr6n-gJG322tYEbSC_WzcHbFBf2m4/edit
This is helpful.
—OP
Posted at twelve o'clock in the morning on March 3rd, 2015.  link  
TL;DR: We don't know how much divestment will affect the Whitman budget. If it turns out to be a lot, we'll spread it out over time. If scholarships are affected, we'll blame the trustees for not cutting the budget somewhere else.
—Anonymous
Posted at half past one in the morning on March 3rd, 2015.  link  

To every student who might be stressed this week—

      Keep your eyes peeled for the unexpected, the delightful, and the mischievous.

—Whitman's Own Merry Pranksters

Posted at six o'clock in the evening on March 1st, 2015.  link   hide  
Or, in other words, your life is about to get that much more stressful
—Anonymous
Posted at six o'clock in the evening on March 1st, 2015.  link  
WOMP.
—Anonymous
Posted at half past eight in the evening on March 1st, 2015.  link  
What the heck is this?
—Anonymous
Posted at twelve o'clock in the morning on March 3rd, 2015.  link  
I have no idea what this means. But I'm kind of excited.
—Anonymous
Posted at a quarter past twelve in the morning on March 3rd, 2015.  link  
^Terrified, but excited. me too ^_^
—:D
Posted at a quarter past twelve in the morning on March 3rd, 2015.  link  

I feel like —

      I don't have a gender at all. But I'm straight. And I look cisgender.

—What do I call myself

Posted at a quarter to seven in the evening on February 22nd, 2015.  link   hide  
Yes. I've been questioning my gender for maybe five years now in a low-grade way, but this year it's all I think about. I just don't understand what gender is. I mean, ok, I understand it in the gender studies way, but I don't know how people know what gender they are. I feel like I would feel the same as I do, be the same person, regardless of whether I had been born male or female. I don't feel like one or the other. I like things about being each, but the binary is so strange…isn't everyone just themselves, and we arbitrarily call some traits masculine and some feminine? Sometimes I act very effeminate but feel masculine or vice versa, and so trying to assess my gender by tallying up "masculine" or "feminine" aspects of myself makes no sense. Usually I just feel like I am who I am, and I have no clue how that translates to gender. I present as cisgender because I don't mind doing so, and like I said, I feel like had I been born the opposite sex I wouldn't mind presenting as cis then either.
—Gender is so mysterious
Posted at half past seven in the evening on February 22nd, 2015.  link  
OP : nongendered? Like, why wouldn't that work?

1st response : Gender is a set of roles that are prescribed by society which people perform, and yeah, to an extent they are arbitrary. The gender-studies answer to how people know what gender they are is that society prescribes a gender onto them, and they internalize it, but things can actually be more complicated than that, due to the complex interconnections between sex, gender, sexuality, and orientation. Some examples:
· There is a higher prevalance of non-normative gender expression among asexuals, and one explanation for this is that because asexuals aren't looking to (sexually) attract others, they don't have to play into the normative expectations of gender expression implied by homo- or hetero-sexuality.
· On the flipside, trans individuals can sometimes be hostile towards non-normative gender expressions, since for trans people, being recognized as the correct gender is the first step towards being recognized as the correct sex.
Speaking personally (and i only bring this up because i feel like it maybe relates to some of your questions), as someone who considers myself both nongendered and trans, things can be kind of a mess. On one hand, masculinity alienates me, because it reminds me of my prescribed maleness; on the other hand, femininity doesn't really fit me, and gender is a social construction anyway. So i find myself trying to play into feminine roles because that's what will get me recognized as female, but simultaneously am never really able to fill / be perceived as inhabiting them.
—Anonymous
Posted at eleven o'clock in the evening on February 22nd, 2015.  link  
were you born with a penis? -> guy
were you born with a vagina -> girl
were you born with both? ->heshe
were you born with neither? ->it
—Anonymous
Posted at a quarter past three in the afternoon on February 23rd, 2015.  link  
^ lol because that makes any kind of sense
"oh i have a vagina i guess i will like bows and ponies"
—Anonymous
Posted at a quarter to four in the afternoon on February 23rd, 2015.  link  
I like bows and ponies and I'm masculine... what's your point?
—Anonymous
Posted at half past eleven in the morning on March 1st, 2015.  link  
that gendre norms and expectations make no sense and also are not tied to specific organs of the body? and thus the penis/vagina -> guy/girl thing is completely irrational?
—Anonymous
Posted at half past two in the afternoon on March 1st, 2015.  link  
The one commented is saying vagina=girl. It sounds like you are saying bows and ponies = girl. Wouldn't your way mean that only if you conform to gender norms can you be that gender? I'd rather go with the sex organ thing. That wouldn't mean penis=muscles and Monster trucks, just penis=guy/he.
—Anonymous
Posted at a quarter past three in the afternoon on March 1st, 2015.  link  
Um, well. If you want an actual response and not off-the-cuff snark, here's my best shot:

First, to clariry, in the "bows and ponies" post, i was speaking renarratively and figuratively. I was not literally saying all girls must like bows and ponies, obviously. I was using bows and ponies as a stand-in for the complex interrelationship of expectations and ideals which socieity assigns to girls.

Secondly, we seem to be getting tied up in terminology here (and this is indeed largely a semantic argument we're having). Gendre, as i use it, is something which is performed, expressed, identified with; it belongs to the symbolic. See Simone's “one is not born a woman, one becomes a woman”. Masculinity and femininity are things you perform (not necessarily by choice), and they are imposed on you depending on your gendre identification. So if you say "i am a girl/she", you bet that means you will have all sorts of shit about beauty standards and proper etiquitte and whatnot imposed on you; if you say "i am a guy/he", yeah, you're going to have masculine expectations imposed on you too. By extension then, saying "penis=guy" is saying "penis=muscles", because our society associates guys with muscles. Guys are hard.

Thirdly, that defining people based on their bodies is incredibly harmful for trans individuals. For obvious reasons, saying penis = guy is harmful to girls who happen to have penises. Also, heshe is a terrible word and "it" is an inanimate pronoun in english and thus incredibly offensive to use to describe a person.

Fourthly, you seem to be caught on this idea that "guy" and "girl" have to come from somewhere, have to equal something, and i don't see why that has to be the case. I'm not saying bows and ponies = girl (although if you are a girl, you might have bows and ponies imposed upon you), but we don't have to base gendre on anything other than itself. You're a guy if you say you're a guy. You're a girl if you say you're a girl. Sex organs, preferences, expression, none of that matters.

Fifthly, gendre is a spectrum in all dimensions and different people will define it differently. So while everything i said holds true for how i define gendre, other people will disagree because they define things differently. That's okay. Where you run into problems is when you start imposing your definitions on others, saying "if YOU have a vagina, you are a girl" instead of just "i consider myself a girl because i have a vagina". Those are two very different things, and you seem to be doing the former.
—Anonymous
Posted at a quarter past four in the afternoon on March 1st, 2015.  link  
I was having doubts with "gendre" but I stopped reading at "Simone's".
—Anonymous
Posted at a quarter past seven in the morning on March 2nd, 2015.  link  
"how dare someone spell things unconventionally or reference authors that are required reading at whitman"
—a bit pretentious, no?
Posted at half past four in the afternoon on March 2nd, 2015.  link  
^^ no man, you're totally right. poster did lowercase "i"s but capitalized "Simone". inconsistent as fuck, obviously doesn't know shit.
—Anonymous
Posted at half past four in the afternoon on March 2nd, 2015.  link  

Gender Studies Majors—

      I know of someone who is very much into furries. They always felt like they were a dog trapped in a person's body. They go so far as to ask me to call them dog and not human. Is it ok if I refuse to do so?

—confused

Posted at half past twelve in the evening on March 2nd, 2015.  link   hide  
why would you? what do you have to gain from imposing your will on others?
—Anonymous
Posted at half past four in the afternoon on March 2nd, 2015.  link  

Dom iso Babygirl—

      Hey there- moderately experienced dom looking for a girl to play with. I'm easy on the eyes, fun and respectful. Email for more info.

—A.

Posted at three o'clock in the afternoon on March 2nd, 2015.  link   hide  

Community—

      Thoughts on-

http://whitmanpioneer.com/opinion/2015/02/26/an-open-letter-to-greek-community/

?

—Tell what you think

Posted at a quarter past six in the evening on February 26th, 2015.  link   hide  
Opinions are like bumholes.
—Anonymous
Posted at a quarter past one in the afternoon on February 27th, 2015.  link  
wut
—Still too drunk to get it, need rehab
Posted at a quarter past one in the afternoon on February 27th, 2015.  link  
Katy killed it- this is a great article and I think that she is saying things that many people feel.
—Anonymous
Posted at twelve o'clock in the morning on March 1st, 2015.  link  
Ignorant post. Sorry. Whoever wrote this must have been high off tumblr.
—Anonymous
Posted at eleven o'clock in the morning on March 1st, 2015.  link  
i don't think there's any substance to it beyond "look at me! look at me!"
—Anonymous
Posted at eleven o'clock in the morning on March 1st, 2015.  link  
Let's make every day a rally against opression guise
—Anonymous
Posted at half past eleven in the morning on March 1st, 2015.  link  
love it when ppl criticize a work without engaging with a single one of its points. u guys are spot on, keep it up.
—Anonymous
Posted at half past two in the afternoon on March 1st, 2015.  link  
I already did. It seems you haven't. This article is bs.
—Anonymous
Posted at half past seven in the morning on March 2nd, 2015.  link  

Crime in Walla Walla —

      Are there any dangerous spots in this town? Is it safe to walk around at night?

—Anonymous

Posted at a quarter past six in the evening on February 22nd, 2015.  link   hide  
try the 4th floor of the library at 11:00 on a Friday. Definitely NOT safe at all. I mean there aren't even condoms in that bathroom! ;)
—get it?
Posted at a quarter past seven in the evening on February 22nd, 2015.  link  
I walk around Walla Walla all the time at night (granted, usually on main roads) and have never had any problems. If you're worried about your safety, maybe invest some time in learning self-defense? Keep in mind that "dangerous parts of town" are in part a myth (or maybe self-fulfilling prophecy) used to quarantine poor people, and while you definintely want to stay safe, there isn't a place in Walla Walla that isn't someone's home/neighborhood that they walk through every day.
—Anonymous
Posted at eleven o'clock in the evening on February 22nd, 2015.  link  
^That's a very idealist way of thinking about it. There are parts of town that are associated with higher crime rates. These are "bad parts of town". That doesn't mean that the people living there are all bad, it just means that statistically speaking people are at greater risk of being subjected to crime in these areas than in other parts of town. Just because people live in these areas doesn't mean that they aren't statistically more dangerous than other areas.
—Anonymous
Posted at half past four in the afternoon on February 27th, 2015.  link  
^ Yes, and by taking this approach, we end up segregating the poor people into the "bad parts of town", because they are the only ones who can't afford to live elsewhere, and perpetuating the problem. So long as rich/privilieged people continue to take the approach that they should maximize their own personal safety at the expense of everyone else, we will never break free of class segregation and the "bad parts of town" will persist.
—Anonymous
Posted at five o'clock in the evening on February 27th, 2015.  link  
Bad parts are north of the highway
—practical answer
Posted at a quarter past five in the evening on February 27th, 2015.  link  
like, the penn?
—Anonymous
Posted at a quarter to eight in the evening on February 27th, 2015.  link  
Fourth poster above, you are an idiot. You are really an idiot. As non-white I get shit yelled at all the time, even in broad daylight. Granted, near whitman things are generally pretty safe, but go near the highway or into the poorer parts of walla walla and you might get to experience interacting with gang members, as I have.
—Anonymous
Posted at eleven o'clock in the morning on March 1st, 2015.  link  
how did u know they were in a gang?
—Anonymous
Posted at a quarter past four in the afternoon on March 1st, 2015.  link  
Because they told me, you dipshit.
—Anonymous
Posted at a quarter past seven in the morning on March 2nd, 2015.  link  

Hi—

      I'm a senior lady who's looking for a WhitMAN hook-up buddy. I'm hot, so you being hot too is a must. I'm also clean, and that is a must for you as well. Same goes for having experience. I like penises that are average or big. For those of you who fit the bill and want a hook-up buddy like me, I'm leaving my email here; if there's anything you want to know about me just ask. Let's have some sex!

—Anonymous

Posted at eight o'clock in the evening on February 25th, 2015.  link   hide  
emailed.
—Anonymous
Posted at a quarter past ten in the evening on February 25th, 2015.  link  
How big are your tits?
—Anonymous
Posted at a quarter to two in the afternoon on February 27th, 2015.  link  
^I too would like to know
—Anonymous
Posted at a quarter past four in the afternoon on February 27th, 2015.  link  
Emailed
—@
Posted at a quarter past eleven in the evening on March 1st, 2015.  link  
GO FOR THE SNAIL
FUN SNAIL SEXYTIMES
@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
—YEAH SNAIL YOU ROCK
Posted at half past twelve in the morning on March 2nd, 2015.  link  

All—

      Honest thoughts on the PPS? Critical, supportive, questioning, etc.

—Bridge over Troubled Waters

Posted at nine o'clock in the evening on February 25th, 2015.  link   hide  
I was #triggered much more this year than last, in quality and quantity.
—attendee
Posted at nine o'clock in the evening on February 25th, 2015.  link  
It was great! I really enjoyed the keynote speaker, good job everybody! Every year, the symposium brings up important topics for the world and for the campus to light. My favorite panel was the one from section four on rape culture.
—junior
Posted at nine o'clock in the evening on February 25th, 2015.  link  
OP, why are you mocking and rude? If you have a problem, why not just speak out? Like with a sign, on Ankeny?
—Anonymous
Posted at nine o'clock in the evening on February 25th, 2015.  link  
Everybody make sure to fill out the survey that got emailed to you so the staff and organizers can take your feedback for next year!
—Panelist
Posted at nine o'clock in the evening on February 25th, 2015.  link  
wish there was more support for generating change outside the dominant phallic economy
—need more #alt communities
Posted at half past eleven in the evening on February 25th, 2015.  link  
I am making my own pens and pencils vulva-shaped to be more accepting of other cultures, as pens and pencils are too phallic and I CANNOT bring myself to support the patriarchy by buying them.
Also I am trying my best to help minorities unite against the patriarchy as it would clearly benefit us all.
—Anonymous
Posted at a quarter past one in the afternoon on February 27th, 2015.  link  
^ you only perceive pens and pencils as phallic because you exist within the dominant phallic economy that praises hardness and penetration over everything else. BELEIVE IT OR NOT, penises are soft most of the time. writing with something that resembles a dildo is sexy and subversive, not patriarchical.
—Anonymous
Posted at five o'clock in the evening on February 27th, 2015.  link  
ink is sexy
—fuck the system
Posted at five o'clock in the evening on February 27th, 2015.  link  
i really have nothing against the organizers and i commend the idea of such an event, but each passing year it becomes more and more apparent that the same ideas are being discussed in circles without coming to any new conclusions or actionable solutions, the same people publicly pat each other on the back 4 their progressiveness and/or self-flagellate (not sure which is worse) and the people who never cared continue not to care
—cynic
Posted at five o'clock in the evening on March 1st, 2015.  link  
^ My thoughts exactly. I voiced my opinion in another post, but it felt to me like the PPS (and the atmosphere that created it) forced me to stay quiet about my opinions, lest I be pigeonholed into being a "racist" just for disagreeing and not wanting to self-flagellate because I'm white, middle class, and male.
—Anonymous
Posted at a quarter past twelve in the morning on March 2nd, 2015.  link  
PPS seems to be about raising awareness, not fostering discussion or advancing change. I feel like it can be helpful for people who are completely unaware of these sorts of issues, but for those who already know what's up there's not a lot offered.

Of course, discussion and change aren't the sorts of things you want confined to a single day, anyway.
—Anonymous
Posted at half past twelve in the morning on March 2nd, 2015.  link  

CONTROVERSIAL STATEMENTS AHEAD—

      The belief in the immaculate conception and resurrection of Jesus Christ is completely compatible with a materialistic, scientific understanding of the Universe.

Jesus Christs admittedly miraculous existence appears to violate humanly-testable laws of physics, namely that of the conservation of matter. Jesus, apparently genetically and corporeally intact, appears in the uterus of the Virgin Mary, and then, 30 years later, his body vanishes into the ether.

The laws of physics must be accepted as such: they are predictive tools, compounded from vast processes of observation and inductive reasoning. They describe past events, and are pretty damn good at predicting stuff that's about to happen.

But let us think about what the biological sciences tell us. We, Homo sapiens, are a species like any other, that has emerged along a particular rootlet of the biological family. Do we, scientists, still cling to the myths of Genesis and accord special status to the naked ape? Are we not just another race of vicious animals? What makes the cants of humans different than the warblings of birds or the humming of bacterial macromolecules? What demarcates the existential myths and ponderings of human scholars from the cryptic yearnings of hungry of aphids and intestinal flukes who prod and probe their own dangerous worlds?

Why is our science THE science? Is it 'cause we're humans and we rock?
Back to Adam, buddy.

Do bacteria on a slide understand a murderous alcohol swab? Have they ever seen an alcoholic swab in their multisecond lifetimes? Is sudden and spontaneous massacre something that bacterial inquiry (whatever that is like!) has accommodated -- or is it something "unexplained"? "Miraculous", even? Could bacteria even understand "alcohol swab" if they tried?

"Alcohol swab. Can't explain that."

When we scientists come across accounts of the "miraculous" or the "unexplained", let us try not to dismiss these accounts, as though we were to stupid to think through the ramifications of our own work. To do so would style ourselves as the very Gods we purport to despise.

As human animals, there may well be beings whose whole nature we will never be able to comprehend and ensconce in our familiar lexicon. The accounts of Jesus might be accounts of an encounter with one such creature, as opposed to some ergot-fueled horseshit from the ancient Levant.

Human-physics works for us (fairly well). Jesus-physics might work for Jesus (whatever He is).



—COME AT ME ATHEISTS

Posted at half past eight in the evening on February 27th, 2015.  link   hide  
are you saying that jesus is an alien.
that is what i got from that.
—Anonymous
Posted at ten o'clock in the evening on February 27th, 2015.  link  
A running theme here lately, but if you can imagine something it's possible by virtue of the fact that you were able to imagine it.
—Anonymous
Posted at half past twelve in the morning on February 28th, 2015.  link  
I am positing that if Jesus existed, he was likely an organism whose complete nature cannot be accommodated by our limited sensory and cognitive capacity. That's why He appears to violate what we know as "laws of nature". He neither exists inside or outside of our universe; He existence transcends space-time as we know it, and renders null questions of his spatial location.

Look up Abbott's Flatland for a good parable about the limits of understanding. Jesus might be a "Cube", and all of us might be "Squares" (metaphorically).
—OP
Posted at a quarter to five in the morning on February 28th, 2015.  link  
why does this matter. this happened 2000 yrs ago, there's really no way of knowing.
—Anonymous
Posted at a quarter to three in the afternoon on February 28th, 2015.  link  
What if… the past itself was the "Cube"???
WHAT IF THE PAST ITSELF IS BEYOND OUR COMPREHENSION AND KNOWLEDGE
—ahhhhhhhhhh
Posted at a quarter past four in the afternoon on February 28th, 2015.  link  
you're a square
—fuck the system
Posted at a quarter past four in the afternoon on February 28th, 2015.  link  
^^ TIME CUBE
—http://www.timecube.com/
Posted at a quarter to five in the evening on February 28th, 2015.  link  
My point is that Jesus DOES NOT EXIST IN THE PAST OR THE FUTURE. He does not exist within the confines of linear time; in a sense, He exists "beside" time in a manner that can only be conveyed via crude metaphor. Jesus, as a "man", is the form that this unfathomable Jesus uber-organism takes when viewed from within our familiar contextual realm.

Other candidates for uber-organism status are the Sasquatch, as well as all manner of ghosts and lost socks.
—OP
Posted at half past eleven in the evening on February 28th, 2015.  link  
Well, Saint Augustine could have told you that.
—bring him back to encounters!
Posted at half past seven in the morning on March 1st, 2015.  link  
I don't need to come at you. Your own opinions contradict themselves.
—Anonymous
Posted at eleven o'clock in the morning on March 1st, 2015.  link  
^Please explain.
—OP
Posted at seven o'clock in the evening on March 1st, 2015.  link  
^ why
—not our job to educate u
Posted at a quarter to eight in the evening on March 1st, 2015.  link  
jhgTYuijhbgtyuhjnhby7u8i9okljhb teh filosofee
—Anonymous
Posted at a quarter to eight in the evening on March 1st, 2015.  link  

whittie girls—

      I know nobody will care about this, but are there any juniors, sophomores or freshman girls interested in pursuing a casual cuddle -relationship (no sex necessary) with a clean, nice, friendly, athletic, understanding guy? If so, shoot me an email, and in the process, make my day, branch out and possible start a low key, high quality friendship that will hopefully last longer than a semester

—Anonymous

Posted at a quarter past seven in the evening on March 1st, 2015.  link   hide  

who the fuck —

      had the genius idea to let us see when a person read our texts? I don't want to fucking know that you read it at 2:30 and didn't respond until 8:45

—socially awkward

Posted at a quarter to five in the evening on March 1st, 2015.  link   hide  
and vice versa for when someone you're not inclined to immediately text back texts you, I don't want them to know that it took me 6 hours or 6 days to respond
—Anonymous
Posted at a quarter to five in the evening on March 1st, 2015.  link  
yo you can turn this feature off. it's labeled "send read receipts".
it's important for ppl to know whether their text got delivered, but you can disable letting them know if you've read them or not.
—Anonymous
Posted at a quarter past six in the evening on March 1st, 2015.  link  

Single Hombres—

      Hi, fellas! I'm looking to meet an interesting guy and get to know him better! I'd love to have a casual dating relationship, maybe something that would lead to more if the chemistry is right. I love to hike, run, bike, nap, and make dumb jokes. Email me if you are looking for something similar!

—Second Year Sweetie

Posted at twelve o'clock in the morning on March 1st, 2015.  link   hide  

Female spring time frolickers—

      Fairest ladies of Whitman,
I can feel spring in the air and in my body creating all kinds of interesting urges. Who wants to come frolick with me, explore the origins of this? Walk nature's hallways, feel the sun on our faces and see where that path might take us? Who am I, you ask? A tall, dark and handsome creature of the East.

—Frolickus

Posted at seven o'clock in the morning on February 22nd, 2015.  link   hide  
"...tall, dark and handsome creature of the East." Oh god, my sides.
—This fuckin post
Posted at half past nine in the morning on February 22nd, 2015.  link  
Oh my....
—Anonymous
Posted at six o'clock in the evening on February 22nd, 2015.  link  
Wait this is the best. Tell me more.
—Amused + Interested
Posted at twelve o'clock in the morning on March 1st, 2015.  link  
Less Recently Active > >
Page