…felt were revolutionary
Ah, lead with an insult. What a good moderator.
Your excuse for removing my post seems bogus to me.
If you think otherwise then DISCUSS it. That’s what we do here.
Yes yes.
On a tangential note, I just had a post removed from nostupidquestions. My post about the degradation of knowledge.
Apparently lemmy mods have recently been given the power of shadow-removal (the power to temove while keeping you in the dark about the fact), which is nice.
When everybody you talk to is dumb as a rock. When the people in charge have the integrity of jello. What then? Is it worthwhile sifting cesspools for specks of intelligent conversation then?
We think and talk about what we observe in terms of rules because rules are a convenient way to think and talk about it. That is the long and short of it.
I’m pointing out a degradation of knowledge and exploring the point at which it is considered false.
For example : a man examines a phenomenon, performs a complex experiment relating to it. Comes up with a nice model. Communicates the model to you. You understand the model but your understanding of the actual phenomenon, maybe less so. So when you discuss the phenomenon with your friends, refer to the model, there’s a bit of bs there.
And another example : A blind man is told that the sky is blue. But his understanding of that is not like the understanding of one who actually observed the blue of the sky, obviously.
Call it what, an unavoidable corruption?
Well it’s a relative thing of course.
Hmm. I think of “physics” as a collection of models. What do you think of it as?
It would depend on my relationship with the body of knowledge I suppose. Are we married or just good friends?
But there’s no such thing as hobbits.
No, haven’t. Thanks. Also consider “A Canticle for Leibowitz”.
My point is that, over time, knowledge gets corrupted. Especially esoteric knowledge. And it might not even take much time.
So you gotta wonder what myths we’ve got now that started as sincere attempts at a model.
And even in the short term. When a guy who made the observation and crafted the model tells you the model, your understanding and his are probably not the same.
So there’s that corruption to consider.
Your bar on what constitutes stupid might be … stupid.
It’s like they took arnold schwartzenegger’s jaw and transplanted it onto a supermodel/kickboxer.
Ah, nature vs nurture. I’m with nature here.
I’d call awareness of that a feminine strength.
I think that the masculine strengths are focused on by modern culture and the feminine ignored. The gross becomes everything and the subtle disappears from view.
Maybe marketing culture is to blame. It cultivates a few easy triggers and suppresses everything else.
So… perception and finesse?
Nice. Thanks.
Talking and listening. “Sensitivity”. “Receptivity”. Those could be called feminine strengths.
Will do. Thanks.
What would you call feminine strengths?
No he didn’t…
This is exhausting.
Who’s dumber, the dummy or the guy who tries to engage the dummy in conversation, in a house run by cubizoids?