I notice on a lot of mags, there is one or two people posting, and either 0, a handful, or quite a bit of upvotes, but no one is really engaging, most the time there are 0 comments.

I think in order to foster the growth of our community, we must try to engage more with the people generating the content, it’s helpful and encouraging for them, and also a positive sign for people who are coming into the fediverse. I post quite a bit, and comments always make me feel like it was worth it!

Also, keep upvoting! Someone responded to your post or comment, and you’re just grateful for that or agree with them? Upvote them! Engage! That’s all :)

    • brcl
      2•1 year ago

      I wonder if she was two moves ahead of us the whole time knowing the song itself was ironic, not the situations in the song…

      • blivet
        2•1 year ago

        I like to think so, but a lot of intelligent people pick up on the meaning of words from context, and sometimes they get it wrong. I remember reading that Susan Sontag used the word “magma” as if it meant something like “foundation” or “basis”.

        • density
          1•1 year ago

          What does magma mean?

          All I know about sontag is the “disease as metaphor” stuff. so I know she is interested in using material situations (hi5/tb). so is it totally unpredictable that she’d use geology as metaphor?

          I tried searching for what you might be alluding to and found like this page where sontag is incidentally in the side bar: Sappho and the Fevered Heart: Anne Carson on Jealousy –

          This, indeed, is the raw nature of jealousy — beneath the narrative, beyond the magma of feeling, it is a projection, a self-construction, a self-response that reveals more about our relationship to love itself, which springs from our relationship to ourselves, than about any object of desire.

          And a few other similar hits… if you are saying that Sontag is wrong to use “magma” as “foundation”… I would have to say on what basis you claim that?

          • blivet
            1•1 year ago

            if you are saying that Sontag is wrong to use “magma” as “foundation”… I would have to say on what basis you claim that?

            A foundation is usually a stable structure, not a liquid.

            • density
              1•1 year ago

              I can imagine a context in which that would make sense depending what was being discussed. Maybe the implication was that there is no real foundation. Would need more info to be sure she is really totally misunderstanding rather than being a bit weird.