Thleen
@kathleenbot.bsky.social
kathleen kath-mean kath-fighting machine | philosophy PhD candidate | she/her/hers
Hmmm, this link is taking me to a different article than the one described in this post. Might be an issue with my browser redirecting, but might be an issue with the URL?
November 23, 2025 at 2:06 PM
Hmmm, this link is taking me to a different article than the one described in this post. Might be an issue with my browser redirecting, but might be an issue with the URL?
“Something special is waiting for you” really pushes it into horror movie teaser poster territory
November 21, 2025 at 9:14 AM
“Something special is waiting for you” really pushes it into horror movie teaser poster territory
My whole body is trying to cringe hard enough to physically prevent me from typing it, but my soul’s instantaneous and undeniable answer to this was Dispatch’s “The General”
November 19, 2025 at 11:12 PM
My whole body is trying to cringe hard enough to physically prevent me from typing it, but my soul’s instantaneous and undeniable answer to this was Dispatch’s “The General”
The further I get in philosophy the more I appreciate prong (2), even though being a philosopher means I am by nature bad at noticing when it is a conceptual option. (Apologies of course to set theorists if this years-old recollection of a secondhand account of their dialectic is inaccurate)
November 18, 2025 at 10:01 AM
The further I get in philosophy the more I appreciate prong (2), even though being a philosopher means I am by nature bad at noticing when it is a conceptual option. (Apologies of course to set theorists if this years-old recollection of a secondhand account of their dialectic is inaccurate)
I once asked my partner, who does a lot of formal philosophy, how people can do set theory in light of, say, Russell’s Paradox, and he explained that the two main routes are (1) to rule it out via lots of complicated rules with unintuitive consequences or (2) to simply avoid doing Russell’s Paradox
November 18, 2025 at 9:56 AM
I once asked my partner, who does a lot of formal philosophy, how people can do set theory in light of, say, Russell’s Paradox, and he explained that the two main routes are (1) to rule it out via lots of complicated rules with unintuitive consequences or (2) to simply avoid doing Russell’s Paradox
As a philosophy PhD it’s bracing to hear that even in the grant applications to the Department of Inconsequential Research the quantitative sciences are eating our lunch
November 16, 2025 at 8:42 PM
As a philosophy PhD it’s bracing to hear that even in the grant applications to the Department of Inconsequential Research the quantitative sciences are eating our lunch
Guy who read @kmdoublev.bsky.social’s “Brazen Dogwhistles” paper too quickly and thinks the phenomenon is people being brazen about the fact of using dogwhistles
November 12, 2025 at 9:10 AM
Guy who read @kmdoublev.bsky.social’s “Brazen Dogwhistles” paper too quickly and thinks the phenomenon is people being brazen about the fact of using dogwhistles
This paper is blatant bait for legal philosophy nerds who will seize any excuse to yell excitedly about R v Dudley and Stephens. A canny marketing move by the JoCI but we're not falling for it this time
November 11, 2025 at 5:03 PM
This paper is blatant bait for legal philosophy nerds who will seize any excuse to yell excitedly about R v Dudley and Stephens. A canny marketing move by the JoCI but we're not falling for it this time
JOB AD EDITOR: “It’s a good first draft, but listing the AOS as ‘philosophy of ai’ looks sort of unprofessional. Either spell out ‘artificial intelligence’ or put it in all caps.”
JOB AD WRITER WITH AN ENTHUSIASTIC GRASP OF THE INCLUSIVE “OR”: “On it, boss”
JOB AD WRITER WITH AN ENTHUSIASTIC GRASP OF THE INCLUSIVE “OR”: “On it, boss”
November 10, 2025 at 11:07 PM
JOB AD EDITOR: “It’s a good first draft, but listing the AOS as ‘philosophy of ai’ looks sort of unprofessional. Either spell out ‘artificial intelligence’ or put it in all caps.”
JOB AD WRITER WITH AN ENTHUSIASTIC GRASP OF THE INCLUSIVE “OR”: “On it, boss”
JOB AD WRITER WITH AN ENTHUSIASTIC GRASP OF THE INCLUSIVE “OR”: “On it, boss”
I know what you’re thinking—sure, the title could refer to K-pop hunters of demons, but couldn’t it ALSO refer to hunters of K-pop demons? The movie cleverly navigates this ambiguity by being about both
October 28, 2025 at 10:06 AM
I know what you’re thinking—sure, the title could refer to K-pop hunters of demons, but couldn’t it ALSO refer to hunters of K-pop demons? The movie cleverly navigates this ambiguity by being about both
Just hit this post in scrolling back through the last hours of my newsfeed and laughed out loud very hard
October 28, 2025 at 8:50 AM
Just hit this post in scrolling back through the last hours of my newsfeed and laughed out loud very hard
Even women who are literally famous for their job of Being Funny cannot escape the internet’s central interpretive maxim, “Women never make jokes on purpose”
October 22, 2025 at 7:44 AM
Even women who are literally famous for their job of Being Funny cannot escape the internet’s central interpretive maxim, “Women never make jokes on purpose”
Not the only thing going on here, but I do specifically sympathize with finding a document that at some point I’d labeled “read” with no indication as to whether I was commanding myself to read it in the future or reminding myself I have already read it in the past
October 20, 2025 at 7:51 AM
Not the only thing going on here, but I do specifically sympathize with finding a document that at some point I’d labeled “read” with no indication as to whether I was commanding myself to read it in the future or reminding myself I have already read it in the past
I’d add too that, while some surveys like this CAN serve a real purpose (like giving feedback after a class or a doctor’s visit), spending every day mechanically filling out a million useless ones makes us take the same mechanical approach to the useful ones too—which makes those a lot less useful!
October 14, 2025 at 9:53 AM
I’d add too that, while some surveys like this CAN serve a real purpose (like giving feedback after a class or a doctor’s visit), spending every day mechanically filling out a million useless ones makes us take the same mechanical approach to the useful ones too—which makes those a lot less useful!
The thing about PTA’s previous Pynchon adaptation (Inherent Vice) is that it’s also PTA’s only movie that isn’t centrally about fucked-up relationships with father figures. It cannot be overstated how thoroughly this movie avoids that problem
October 8, 2025 at 9:45 AM
The thing about PTA’s previous Pynchon adaptation (Inherent Vice) is that it’s also PTA’s only movie that isn’t centrally about fucked-up relationships with father figures. It cannot be overstated how thoroughly this movie avoids that problem
I recently started highlighting definitions of theses/variables/etc in a different color than my regular highlights when reading PDFs, for ease of flipping back and refreshing my memory when the thesis or variable comes up later, and it has made horribly obvious how often it DOESN’T COME UP LATER
October 7, 2025 at 9:22 AM
I recently started highlighting definitions of theses/variables/etc in a different color than my regular highlights when reading PDFs, for ease of flipping back and refreshing my memory when the thesis or variable comes up later, and it has made horribly obvious how often it DOESN’T COME UP LATER
Couldn’t agree more. Those ladies are the least imaginative game console gijinka I’ve ever seen, and maybe also the least horny
September 29, 2025 at 9:35 AM
Couldn’t agree more. Those ladies are the least imaginative game console gijinka I’ve ever seen, and maybe also the least horny
It’s probably trivial to avoid writing “Smiley smiled” in a paranoid spy thriller but I’d imagine it’s a lot harder to avoid having to write “Frowny frowned.” Le Carré was on easy mode is what I’m saying
September 17, 2025 at 9:39 AM
It’s probably trivial to avoid writing “Smiley smiled” in a paranoid spy thriller but I’d imagine it’s a lot harder to avoid having to write “Frowny frowned.” Le Carré was on easy mode is what I’m saying
Thank you for the shred of comfort this provided to this Vols alumna currently living in Europe who had to wake up to this final score. (Also very curious whether your UT-affiliated philosophy buddy is anyone I’d know!)
September 14, 2025 at 10:00 AM
Thank you for the shred of comfort this provided to this Vols alumna currently living in Europe who had to wake up to this final score. (Also very curious whether your UT-affiliated philosophy buddy is anyone I’d know!)
V interested by this take because—after hearing this and other criticisms of the first game—I skipped straight to the second, which I adored. If you’ve played both I’m curious to hear if you think (a) the differences between the two on this front are overstated or (b) the first is actually better !
September 11, 2025 at 8:55 AM
V interested by this take because—after hearing this and other criticisms of the first game—I skipped straight to the second, which I adored. If you’ve played both I’m curious to hear if you think (a) the differences between the two on this front are overstated or (b) the first is actually better !
Thank you for this detective work on behalf of all those of us who lack the stomach to spend too much time looking at this book’s actual contents but want to be up to speed on all its bizarre editorial choices
September 9, 2025 at 1:29 PM
Thank you for this detective work on behalf of all those of us who lack the stomach to spend too much time looking at this book’s actual contents but want to be up to speed on all its bizarre editorial choices
Filing a FOIA request to unredact precisely as many letters of that blacked-out name as are necessary to clarify whether Trump’s name is a spot too high or Rosovsky’s name is a spot too low
September 9, 2025 at 1:09 PM
Filing a FOIA request to unredact precisely as many letters of that blacked-out name as are necessary to clarify whether Trump’s name is a spot too high or Rosovsky’s name is a spot too low
I run into this too !! I think it’s bc they’ve been taught “objective = applies to everyone; subjective = different for everyone,” which totally DOES sound like it’s pointing to a difference in granularity (especially since the granularity difference DOES matter—it’s just not the one we mean here!)
September 3, 2025 at 9:59 AM
I run into this too !! I think it’s bc they’ve been taught “objective = applies to everyone; subjective = different for everyone,” which totally DOES sound like it’s pointing to a difference in granularity (especially since the granularity difference DOES matter—it’s just not the one we mean here!)