Mr. Rogers had an intentional manner of speaking to children, which his writers called “Freddish”. There were nine steps for translating into Freddish:
“State the idea you wish to express as clearly as possible, and in terms preschoolers can understand.” Example: It is dangerous to play in the street.
“Rephrase in a positive manner,” as in It is good to play where it is safe.
“Rephrase the idea, bearing in mind that preschoolers cannot yet make subtle distinctions and need to be redirected to authorities they trust.” As in, “Ask your parents where it is safe to play.”
“Rephrase your idea to eliminate all elements that could be considered prescriptive, directive, or instructive.” In the example, that’d mean getting rid of “ask”: Your parents will tell you where it is safe to play.
“Rephrase any element that suggests certainty.” That’d be “will”: Your parents can tell you where it is safe to play.
“Rephrase your idea to eliminate any element that may not apply to all children.” Not all children know their parents, so: Your favorite grown-ups can tell you where it is safe to play.
“Add a simple motivational idea that gives preschoolers a reason to follow your advice.” Perhaps: Your favorite grown-ups can tell you where it is safe to play. It is good to listen to them.
“Rephrase your new statement, repeating the first step.” “Good” represents a value judgment, so: Your favorite grown-ups can tell you where it is safe to play. It is important to try to listen to them.
“Rephrase your idea a final time, relating it to some phase of development a preschooler can understand.” Maybe: Your favorite grown-ups can tell you where it is safe to play. It is important to try to listen to them, and listening is an important part of growing.
Rogers brought this level of care and attention not just to granular
details and phrasings, but the bigger messages his show would send.
Hedda Sharapan, one of the staff members at Fred Rogers’s production
company, Family Communications, Inc., recalls Rogers once halted taping
of a show when a cast member told the puppet Henrietta Pussycat not to
cry; he interrupted shooting to make it clear that his show would never
suggest to children that they not cry.
In working on the show,
Rogers interacted extensively with academic researchers. Daniel R.
Anderson, a psychologist formerly at the University of Massachusetts who
worked as an advisor for the show, remembered a speaking trip to
Germany at which some members of an academic audience raised questions
about Rogers’s direct approach on television. They were concerned that
it could lead to false expectations from children of personal support
from a televised figure. Anderson was impressed with the depth of
Rogers’s reaction, and with the fact that he went back to production
carefully screening scripts for any hint of language that could confuse
children in that way.
In fact, Freddish and Rogers’s philosophy of
child development is actually derived from some of the leading
20th-century scholars of the subject. In the 1950s, Rogers, already well
known for a previous children’s TV program, was pursuing a graduate
degree at The Pittsburgh Theological Seminary when a teacher there
recommended he also study under the child-development expert Margaret
McFarland at the University of Pittsburgh. There he was exposed to the
theories of legendary faculty, including McFarland, Benjamin Spock, Erik
Erikson, and T. Berry Brazelton. Rogers learned the highest standards
in this emerging academic field, and he applied them to his program for
almost half a century.
This is one of the reasons Rogers was so
particular about the writing on his show. “I spent hours talking with
Fred and taking notes,” says Greenwald, “then hours talking with
Margaret McFarland before I went off and wrote the scripts. Then Fred
made them better.” As simple as Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood looked and sounded, every detail in it was the product of a tremendously careful, academically-informed process.
That idea is REALLY worth learning to talk to the kiddos. Mr. Rogers still has a lot to teach us–especially for our own kids.
Mr. Rogers had an intentional manner of speaking to children, which his writers called “Freddish”. There were nine steps for translating into Freddish:
“State the idea you wish to express as clearly as possible, and in terms preschoolers can understand.” Example: It is dangerous to play in the street.
“Rephrase in a positive manner,” as in It is good to play where it is safe.
“Rephrase the idea, bearing in mind that preschoolers cannot yet make subtle distinctions and need to be redirected to authorities they trust.” As in, “Ask your parents where it is safe to play.”
“Rephrase your idea to eliminate all elements that could be considered prescriptive, directive, or instructive.” In the example, that’d mean getting rid of “ask”: Your parents will tell you where it is safe to play.
“Rephrase any element that suggests certainty.” That’d be “will”: Your parents can tell you where it is safe to play.
“Rephrase your idea to eliminate any element that may not apply to all children.” Not all children know their parents, so: Your favorite grown-ups can tell you where it is safe to play.
“Add a simple motivational idea that gives preschoolers a reason to follow your advice.” Perhaps: Your favorite grown-ups can tell you where it is safe to play. It is good to listen to them.
“Rephrase your new statement, repeating the first step.” “Good” represents a value judgment, so: Your favorite grown-ups can tell you where it is safe to play. It is important to try to listen to them.
“Rephrase your idea a final time, relating it to some phase of development a preschooler can understand.” Maybe: Your favorite grown-ups can tell you where it is safe to play. It is important to try to listen to them, and listening is an important part of growing.
Rogers brought this level of care and attention not just to granular
details and phrasings, but the bigger messages his show would send.
Hedda Sharapan, one of the staff members at Fred Rogers’s production
company, Family Communications, Inc., recalls Rogers once halted taping
of a show when a cast member told the puppet Henrietta Pussycat not to
cry; he interrupted shooting to make it clear that his show would never
suggest to children that they not cry.
In working on the show,
Rogers interacted extensively with academic researchers. Daniel R.
Anderson, a psychologist formerly at the University of Massachusetts who
worked as an advisor for the show, remembered a speaking trip to
Germany at which some members of an academic audience raised questions
about Rogers’s direct approach on television. They were concerned that
it could lead to false expectations from children of personal support
from a televised figure. Anderson was impressed with the depth of
Rogers’s reaction, and with the fact that he went back to production
carefully screening scripts for any hint of language that could confuse
children in that way.
In fact, Freddish and Rogers’s philosophy of
child development is actually derived from some of the leading
20th-century scholars of the subject. In the 1950s, Rogers, already well
known for a previous children’s TV program, was pursuing a graduate
degree at The Pittsburgh Theological Seminary when a teacher there
recommended he also study under the child-development expert Margaret
McFarland at the University of Pittsburgh. There he was exposed to the
theories of legendary faculty, including McFarland, Benjamin Spock, Erik
Erikson, and T. Berry Brazelton. Rogers learned the highest standards
in this emerging academic field, and he applied them to his program for
almost half a century.
This is one of the reasons Rogers was so
particular about the writing on his show. “I spent hours talking with
Fred and taking notes,” says Greenwald, “then hours talking with
Margaret McFarland before I went off and wrote the scripts. Then Fred
made them better.” As simple as Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood looked and sounded, every detail in it was the product of a tremendously careful, academically-informed process.
That idea is REALLY worth learning to talk to the kiddos. Mr. Rogers still has a lot to teach us–especially for our own kids.
[Image Description: a photo of a professionally printed campaign sign in a yard with yellow-on-blue text that says “Gary Crum Wyoming Senate” with the republican elephant symbol. Over the Rs in both “Gary” and “Crum” have squares of slightly darker blue around them, and over those blue squares the Rs have been handpainted back on in a slightly different yellow shade. At the top of the photo is the text “There is a war going on”, and the bottom text says “Between people people painting over the R’s and the ones who keep painting the R’s back on”. End I.D]
you HAVE to expand what your mental image of what a woman looks like in order to progress past trans/misogyny and intersexism. when you finally accept that “woman” does not have a set look or sound, you free yourself from the chains of both patriarchy and radfem ideals. “woman” does not mean thin, pretty, hairless, short, quiet, large breasted, hour glass figured, weak, submissive, high voiced, or small.
women can and do look, act, and sound like anything. cis, intersex, trans, butch, non binary, gender non conforming, detrans, or anything else: any woman can look, act and sound like anything. we are just as diverse as any other member of this population. in order to acknowledge this, we must let go of the concept that a woman “should” look, act, or sound like anything.
“what if kids identify with something and it ends up just being a phase-?” good. stop teaching and expecting kids (and adults honestly) to formulate permanent traits and ideas of themselves. everything in life is a phase. that doesn’t make it any less legitimate while you experience it. let people explore themselves and know it’s okay if what you think about yourself changes.
I knew I was nonbinary growing up when I realized that I literally didn’t understand how gender worked. I thought it was like being goth, or a furry. I thought I just wasn’t allowed to shop at the other clothing section because it was expensive.
Even now I have trouble with the idea that people have a visceral sense of gender, even with other trans people. I have never even for a moment considered myself to be male or female, and I’ve never experienced a desire to be either.
I see a lot of how I experience gender (or my lack thereof) in how asexual people describe their understanding of sexuality. There’s this common refrain of realizing “wait this is actually something you experience? Like for real? Like it’s not just in cartoons? You’re fucking with me.”
It is kinda funny how when people read “nonbinary” they hear “cis woman with blue hair” only to get jumpscared by my ghoulish 6'2’’ ass.
I must admit it gives me sick joy to see this guy constantly getting himself into new disasters, like knocking over multiple can pyramids at the supermarket
he says irish, italian, and german immigrants like he just woke up from a 100 year coma
The campaign managers see that Kamala is up in the polls and are saying “maybe stop attacking black and brown people for a bit,” so he overcorrected to attack whites instead
I was playing Rain World on my PC yesterday and I went through the Memory Crypts for the first time, and oh my god I had no idea how meaty the cabinet beasts were. I’d only seen them in the Switch version of the game before, I guess they’re not rendered correctly on the Switch?? That or my brightness was turned down too low for me to see them. But oh my god. There’s just meat in there.
The reason it looked so different on PC likely has to do with my monitor’s brightness/contrast settings, as this reddit post demonstrates:
But yeah, the cabinet beasts are the pinkish shapes in those boxes in the memory crypts, and can clearly be seen when you turn the brightness up. (Also they’re much harder to see if you don’t have neuron glow yet.) Creepy.
I took some screenshots and boosted the contrast + saturation:
(Left: Unaltered, Right: Enhanced)
Hopefully they should be much easier to see here.
(In retrospect, it was definitely my monitor settings that was making them so apparent, lol)
unfortunately I wasn’t able to find a version of the cabinet beasts that wasn’t the heatmap, nor could I find them in the ingame files(I don’t know where background things aaaaaaare). But here’s a better look at them!
Why hasn’t there been a needlessly aggressive 5031 response article where they try to 5031 all the anomalies but THEN they meet the Strawman Anomaly who is ontologically evil and for some reason becomes more evil when treated humanely
Due to the existence of the Animate Straw Monstrosity we must treat all anomalies as unethically as possible until brave lone-wolf researchers gain renegade control of the project and decide without oversight to attempt Kindness, though of course if we discover their machinations they will be swiftly killed. To raise the stakes
Why hasn’t there been a needlessly aggressive 5031 response article where they try to 5031 all the anomalies but THEN they meet the Strawman Anomaly who is ontologically evil and for some reason becomes more evil when treated humanely
Due to the existence of the Animate Straw Monstrosity we must treat all anomalies as unethically as possible until brave lone-wolf researchers gain renegade control of the project and decide without oversight to attempt Kindness, though of course if we discover their machinations they will be swiftly killed. To raise the stakes
i do think it’s so fun that there’s a limit to the maximum size of a structure that your mind can conceive of before your imagination starts glitching and struggling to fully render it like an overloaded processor machine. your imagination is only limitless if it stays within the dimensional guidelines encoded into it. and needless to say the one i can imagine is bigger than any of you losers could ever hope to dream of.
This is especially frustrating because the only reason we know the wind speed is because NOAA’s Hurricane Hunters literally fly into the hurricane and collect vital data. They fly in and out of the storm over and over in 8 hour shifts.
This brave team flies two identical Lockheed P3s called Kermit and Miss Piggy.
You can see the dangling ornaments in the videos to determine which plane they are in.
And when I say they fly into the hurricane, I mean they fly *into* the hurricane.
Here they are in the eye of Milton.
And here they are in the eye of Irma.
As you may notice, this flight was in Kermit.
So the next time you see live data about a hurricane’s wind speed and pressure, just remember how that was collected and don’t be a giant turd about it.
And please vote because conservatives want to kill NOAA.
This is serious But I also just want everyone to know that Kermit and Miss Piggy have retro-style nose artwork of the characters:
I was so enamored with the ornaments that I didn’t think to check for nose art. Thanks for adding this!
This is especially frustrating because the only reason we know the wind speed is because NOAA’s Hurricane Hunters literally fly into the hurricane and collect vital data. They fly in and out of the storm over and over in 8 hour shifts.
This brave team flies two identical Lockheed P3s called Kermit and Miss Piggy.
You can see the dangling ornaments in the videos to determine which plane they are in.
And when I say they fly into the hurricane, I mean they fly *into* the hurricane.
Here they are in the eye of Milton.
And here they are in the eye of Irma.
As you may notice, this flight was in Kermit.
So the next time you see live data about a hurricane’s wind speed and pressure, just remember how that was collected and don’t be a giant turd about it.
And please vote because conservatives want to kill NOAA.
This is serious But I also just want everyone to know that Kermit and Miss Piggy have retro-style nose artwork of the characters:
I was so enamored with the ornaments that I didn’t think to check for nose art. Thanks for adding this!
actual quote from the author of the original manga:
All I wish to convey via this manga is a form of love that isn’t bound by terms such as BL or TS. But to be honest, I just want to awaken a new fetish within someone, that’s what I strongly hope to achieve. Please awaken.
legendary quote. please put this man into contact with some genderfucky queers i wanna see what chaos ensues
when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. when all you have is a paintbrush, everything looks like a canvas. when all you have is a cock, everything looks like the exhaust pipe of a 2014 honda civic. so yes, to answer your question, i am stuck. please call the emergency services
Everything is like “QUEER history” and “List of QUEER young adult books” or “Top 10 QUEER movies” and queer this and queer that and for the love of god please just say LGBT.
But queer is more inclusive
And faster to pronounce if you are talking instead of writing.
It’s not more inclusive, and if your excuse of using a slur as a blanket term is “it’s faster to say”, GENUINELY what is wrong with you
It’s called economía del lenguaje.
It’s also the respected academic term?? The acronym isn’t static and it’s usage is varied by things like generational difference, location, and knowledge of the community. Even just in the U.S. in the last few decades the common usage gone from GLBT to LGBT to LGBTQ, to LGBTQA/LGBTQIA/LGBTQIAP/etc (Which, let me tell you as someone who has given presentations in the past using these updated acronyms, are all real mouthfulls), to LGBT+.
Also yes, queer is more inclusive! Especially coming at it from an academic standpoint, people didn’t always use or identify with the terms we use now and you can’t always try to cram them into our modern perceptions of sexuality. We can argue for years about whether a famous historical figure was gay or bisexual or straight and trans or whatever, but if we can all agree that they were somehow queer then using that term allows us to move past the debate and into productive discussion. And not everybody everywhere shares the same terms for sexual and gender identity, or even the same concepts of those things, so queer really is a more inclusive term in a lot of cases.
Like yeah if you’re talking specifically about gay or trans people you can just say gay or transgender, but if you’re talking about more than one identity or someone who doesn’t conform to our perceptions of ‘LGBT,’ or a person or people whose identity you don’t know, queer is just the better word.
“That’s SO gay”, “Oh my god, you’re not a LESBIAN, are you?”
Your words are slurs, too. Why do you get your words, but I don’t get mine? What makes you so special?
I’m here, I’m queer, go fuck yourself.
queer is not a slur, stop drinking the TERF koolaid
every time one of you fools spout about ‘queer is a slur’ a terf laughs because their fucking plan to make that word ‘taboo’ is fucking working you dipshit.
I did not get my degree in queer literature for you all to keep pulling this bullshit.
baby gays,,,, i beg of you to learn your queer history and stop listening to terf bullshit
every single one of our labels has been used as a slur against us.
terfs and -phobes are always going to try and hurt us with what we identify as. but the fact remains these are OUR labels and always have been.
we’re here, we’re queer, get used to it.
I don’t know if this is just because I’m not American but I’ve never heard queer used as a slur. Ever. Meanwhile gay was the insult in the 2000s here. Everything you didn’t like was ‘soo gay’. Queer wasn’t even a word most of us knew back then.
It just baffled me that people would think an identifier is automatically a slur just because someone uses it to mock someone. If we did that gay would be a slur. Stupid would be a slur. Autistic would be a slur.
The reason people are upset about the word queer is that it’s a unifying term. You can say you’re queer and all people will know is that you’re part of the community. But you can’t say you’re LGBT, you have to say you’re gay or trans or ace. They don’t want you to be ambiguously queer. They want you to say which kind of queer you are so they can decide whether you’re undesirable.
yeah in the 90s and early 2000s kids would call each other “gay” as an insult. But no one ties themselves in knots over whether “gay” is a slur. So yeah, please ffs learn your history.
They want you to say which kind of queer you are so they can decide whether you’re undesirable.
They want you to say which kind of queer you are so they can decide whether you’re allowed to live.
I just reada really good fic but halfway through I realized “oh shit this is really familiar…. didn’t I write something like this once?” And as I kept reading I kept predicting what happened next and the further I went the more convinced I was that they’d ripped off my story-
like, copied the ENTIRE plot and re-written it, just better than I had? The characters were more fleshed-out than mine were, and the POV was more interesting, and the pace made more sense- but it was MY STORY?
So close to the end I was like “holy shit.. do I message them? Ask if my story inspired theirs? Should I be angry? Flattered?” Cause their tags and description didn’t mention me AT ALL, which, sure, it’s fanfiction to begin with, but if you’re using my work than at least credit me as inspo, right? Just to be courteous?
But I get to the end of the final chapter, and it’s not finished, and I’m kind of disappointed cause I never finished my story and I was really immersed in their version now and had been looking forwards to seeing how they tied up my loose ends- so I scroll to the bottom to leave a comment, and.
It’s MY URL.
IT WAS MY STORY THE WHOLE TIME.
THE ONE *I WROTE*.
In *2013*.
And FORGOT ABOUT
BECAUSE I WAS SO INSECURE ABOUT MY SLOPPY, SHALLOW, AMETEUR WRITING
And I’m just sitting here now staring into space thinking about every shitty story I’ve ever written now like
We’re only a month away from Halloween so I’m gonna start telling these jokes and if someone asks me why I’m going to say that they’re Halloween themed jokes. If they say it’s not close to Halloween yet I’m gonna say that it’s always Halloween
ALT
ALT
