why

phased vs. fazed phased is typically followed by in or out, used to mean when something is introduced or being stopped slowly: “The company has slowly been phasing in the new software.” fazed refers to the state of being bothered by something; usually used in its negative form: “She remained unfazed.”

discrete vs. discreet discrete is usually used in a mathematical context and means to separate: “It is an ongoing process rather than a discrete event.” discreet means something inconspicuous or subtle: “I want this handled discreetly.”

ascent vs. assent ascent refers to climbing something: “She begun the ascent at dawn.” assent is a formal way to refer to agreeing: “The consumer needs to assent to the privacy agreement.”

its vs it’s its is the possessive form of the pronoun it: “The dog laid on its back.” it’s = it + is/was: “It’s not possible!”

me: yeah i know, they’re all primary colors, it’s perfect

When you go for an MLS (Master’s of Library Science, which is a thing, and which is usually required for “professional-level” library work [which is also a weird and contentious concept that I won’t go into here]), one of the things you study is the organization of information. This deals with how to determine what a book or other material is “about"—a concept we tongue-in-cheek call “aboutness"—and how to convey that to a potential user of the item and make it easy for them to find. Things like keywords and subject headings, do I put this book about how often wild birds attack aerial drones in with books about birds or with books about technology, if its a fictional novel do I put fantasy in it’s own section or mix it in with all of the other fiction, so on and so on.

OP is organizing books by how they would look for them. OP’s partner is thinking in terms of aboutness. This is a system that works for OP because it’s their personal library: they know basically what books they own and they only own books that are relevant to them, and if they know what the book looks like, that can be a quick way to find it.

In a library that assumes the public (or people who do not own that particular collection of books) are using the collection, that doesn’t work. Books are often re-issued in multiple covers, or re-bound in new covers when they get worn out, and if the user doesn’t know what the book looks like or is expecting a different cover, they’re lost. That’s why non-personal libraries used standardized cataloging systems like the Dewey Decimal System or Library of Congress System to organize a book by what it’s “about”, and then put books about the same or similar topics together, marked with labels and signage so a person unfamiliar with the book or collection can find their way to it.

Basically, OP’s system works for their own personal library, because it’s best suited to how the primary user—OP themselves—looks for books. OP’s librarian partner is coming from a background of thinking in terms of a public-facing collection, where aboutness is the key criteria and communicating it to a user unfamiliar with the collection is the priority.

like, for me the heart and soul of lotr is the hobbits, and it always bemuses me to see how underrated they can be in fics or fandom like?? you have these funky little fuckers who are really brave and kind and loyal but also have oddball forms of government and eat and party a lot and get into scrapes and have all these hobbit pals and there's all sorts of shipping options and they have interesting nuanced social politics and second breakfast and pipeweed and they give presents on their birthday instead of the other way around so they're always getting presents and they're hilariously weird about their family trees and they led full-scale guerrilla warfare against these bastards who invaded their homeland but also all they want to do is chill and have nice gardens and probably judge vegetable growing competitions and have pretty dances

Here it is again. You might want to save it just in case an accident like that happens again

You are stuck as a soldier in this historical war

(this is a magical universe where people who wouldn't usually be able to fight would. so you can all suffer.)

this is valid and i think in Mass Effect specifically they take the parallelism one further and ensure planet names and species names aren't immediately obvious connected (human/Earth actually does have a conceptual relationship; both are related to a word for "ground, earth" in Indo-European, but not the same word). but i don't think this one is entirely tolkien's fault as she posits--or maybe it's just his fault when it comes to (some) fantasy races? like you rarely see Orc or Troll capitalized.

what i think is going on here linguistically is that early science fiction especially established the capitalization because aliens were Inhabitants of Place: the Venusians of Venus, the Martians of Mars, later the Vulcans of Vulcan, and so forth. so at least in the science fiction case the generalized rule isn't what you do with a word for a species of biological organism (human, dolphin, aardvark are all common nouns), it's what you do with a demonym--and demonyms are capitalized because they derive from proper nouns. A German is from Germany, an Egyptian is from Egypt. and similarly designations for other kinds of groups of people are also often capitalized: a Catholic adheres to Catholicism, a Republican votes for the Republican party (but a conservative votes for conservative politicians--no capitalization), etc. this is indeed the argument for capitalizing Black in reference to african-americans: you're not describing a generic attribute in this context, you're referring to a culture, some members of which do not even have especially dark skin.

i think i do prefer not capitalizing species names in SF, but i think it works best when you're also making sure pure not doing the pulpy/retro "the aliens from Android are Andorians" thing. if you aren't, then you can also make a linguistic distinction more easily between (say) an asari born and raised on Earth--an Earthling for sure, though not a human--and a human born and raised on Thessia.

Gather round kids while I explain this manipulation tactic that men perpetually try to use and why it’s bullshit.

If someone is openly showing interest in you by making disparaging or disappointed comments about your age, they’re trying to put you on the defensive. This guy wants me to try to quell his discomfort, to bring up that I’m only a month shy of 20, etc. - he wants me to try to prove myself to him, that I’m mature and adult enough for a man like him.

His goal is to establish a power imbalance right off the bat. If we were to date, I would constantly be on the defensive, constantly striving to be an equal, constantly trying to prove my “adult” credentials. Anything he says or does or wants from this point on that I object to would just be seen as a strike against my age, proof that he was right and that I’m not mature enough for him. This is how SO MANY men pressure younger individuals (primarily women and girls) into situations and relationships they aren’t comfortable with. If he truly thought I was too young for him, he wouldn’t have messaged me. This is a very calculated move, and it’s fucking gross.