critical masses will mass against this criticism
Wow, you really like your wordplay, huh.
Whenever something makes the news or the rounds on social media, this is your opportunity to advocate to other people for the correct “thing,” whatever that is. … Which you are presently not doing.
“But is that why they’re blocking the road?” Yes. Yes it is.
Running people over is also illegal. A defensive driver would stop and wait for the road obstruction to clear, or take a wide-berth, safe alternative path around it.
I’m sure it was bound to start whether it was you or not, haha. This is just one of those questions.
I’m not even really participating as much as I am just trying to spread a bit of philosophy. I think I said this elsewhere, but people often reach for science and facts to sort questions like these long before philosophy, which I find a bit sad because it’s really powerful.
How are you commenting in /workreform while talking about PayPal like it’s just one of those thorny bushes you gotta walk all the way around?
Like, they shouldn’t be allowed to do this. Period. Among other things.
If I’d ask you for wet water, I’d look mentally questionable.
I think this is because water is always wet. It’s a bit redundant.
That is, unless,
We had a lot of ice. And, “wet water” was a very silly way of asking for the melted kind. I might think you bumped your head, but I would know what you meant.
“Is water wet” is not a complete question. I don’t know what the asker’s expectations are, so a satisfying answer is not really possible.
This is not too different from the ship of theseus being a difficult, brainteasing paradox until you clarify what exactly is meant by “is the ship of theseus.” “Which of these two boats is registered to me by the boat authority” is a much simpler question to answer.
But it… it can’t move unless the water moves. It just visually distinguishes… okay.
While I agree that water is wet in general, I don’t think this is a complete question. It’s somewhat difficult to answer because I don’t know what the person asking’s expectations are.
Water is wet if we’re talking about how it feels to interact with and how it will make us wet too.
Water isn’t wet if we’re talking about things which are supposed to be dry but aren’t, like when surveying the damage after a spill.
I don’t mean to butt in if the two of you are just having fun, but this Vsauce video on the philosophy of definitions might help sort through some of the more confusing feelings.
water can’t be covered in water.
This seems very… arbitrary.
What if you used food coloring? You could have some red water, and if poured carefully, and before it diffused, you could “cover” it in blue water. Certainly, there’d be no way to get to the red water without first touching the blue bits, which feels a lot like being covered by them.
Possibly. Some do, I’m sure.
I see a lot of people try to answer brainteaser questions like this as if they can be driven down to some scientific ultimatum, but science can’t answer questions of philosophy. “Wet” is something we made up. A towel doesn’t care if it’s “damp” or not. How could it?
See my other comment if you want a link to a fun Vsauce video.
If you drive down far enough, I don’t think “wet” even remains to be a property something can have. As was mentioned, what is wetness to an individual molecule? It must be surrounded? Are all molecules “wet” with air, then?
“Wet” as a concept I think is really only useful to people communicating to each other what to expect. For instance, if I asked what was in the fridge, and you said “nothing”, it would be weird if I came to correct you: “duh, actually, there is a speck of dust in the corner. And not only that, it’s actually completely full! Of air.” This is because what you meant was, “to eat.”
A “wet” towel will feel damp and watery to a person picking it up in a way almost indistinguishable from water itself, and this is enough to say that both are wet. But, if I had spilled water, and you wanted to know how many things had gotten wet—well, these are a different set of expectations, and so maybe I wouldn’t count the water.
I would draw a distinct line between the critical thinking of engineering and the critical thinking of the humanities, but yes. Just in the sense that engineering alone is good, but definitely not sufficient.
There is a common archetype of person in stem who thinks that because they’re very good at programming that they’re also very good at everything, and so spends half of their college tenure in a fratboy flophouse reinventing basic philosophy ideas Isaac Asimov thought of 70 years ago as part of their mission to solve society’s problems with bitcoin.
That is fantastic. I’m glad you like them.
The difference here, presumably, is that you’ve thought about what you eat and continue to do so knowing full well what that means, whatever it means. But~ not everybody thinks about it. Some people are carried forward through life just by the sheer momentum of their childhood.
And I say some people, but really, everybody is in some way or another. It takes active effort to change your course in life.
For example, no idea what your diet is like: if you eat a lot of junk food, do you know how much sugar you’re consuming? Have you ever thought about whether that’s a good thing?
Tom Cruise. But, plug
Ohhh, okay. I see how it is.
I want you to realize for a moment that you are arguing with one sentence in a comic that said of itself “I will not explain what this means right now.”
Yeah, and check this out!
That’s the type of independence I want to strive for.
They want to “strive” for “issues”? We know what they think independence is. Why do they want to destroy society??
My friends do that.
Live your dream, mate.
Be free~
!remindme 1 year to make fun of you after he’s convicted.
To be clear, I have no idea what Walt is or isn’t. I’m not making a claim there, haha.
it would be irresponsible to turn Nazi into a generic pejorative for “bigot.”
I agree… especially if we’re talking about historical figures who might be pretty far removed from the modern political climate.
But to be fair, there is a pretty direct connection between bigotry and nazis, modern or otherwise.
Criticizing the term’s over use
You can’t police overuse. Just disagree and move on.
By constantly handwringing about it every single time it comes up, you end up teaching people that that’s the way you are supposed to react to this information. It becomes a thought terminating cliche. Somebody says nazi, and the first thing anyone else thinks about is “well, they’re probably just being hyperbolic.” You’re reinforcing the same narrative.
Like, a good nazi accusation usually comes with an argument. “Such and such is a nazi because of these 6 things I saw them do, and they kicked a dog also,” but even then, people will twist themselves into pretzels about whether the word is still “too much” or not. You have to cut them off. It’s not relevant. It doesn’t need to be given dignity as a criticism. It only serves as a distraction from the 6 points.
People do the exact same thing about the word genocide.
Think about it this way: an actual nazi benefits from these terms being muddy and unworkable, so our strategy cannot depend on clear waters; we will never get them.
Are you suggesting they would rape her?
I’m sure they feel very protected.