Oh, I understood it; I’m a native English speaker. Unfortunately for you, “then dw bt it” doesn’t make any sense.
Are we even in a thread about AI? I’ve gone through my comments, and I don’t see any evidence of me being “obsessed with AI”, honestly it’s not that big of a deal to me.
Looks like someone’s projecting a little something…
who the fuck are you, pissing around in here like this? I wasn’t even replying to you. being a native english speaker honestly just adds to it. “if i cant understand it, it doesn’t make sense!” what an arrogant fucking moron. you realize how absolutely arrogant and narcissistic that sounds, right?
how about you post on your real account instead of your porn account so i can block bitter assholes like you. go get a lobotomy and get the fuck out my DMs
I’m not in your dms, but the only reason I’m on this account is that my normal ones were upgrading to 19.2 and my app hadn’t caught up lol. My normal accounts are @swab148 and @swab148 if you wanna block them.
If this is the pizza for 36 $ I feel pitty for humanity.
Someone, who probably works a shitty job that pays mostly for their rent, comes home way too tired and depressed to cook. Orders a pizza that looks absolutely underwhelming. For money that is equivalent for a month of food in another country.
hey so this might come as a surprise to some guys but actually most of the time women put effort into their appearance for themselves, so they feel confident, and comfortable in their bodies.
this post is reeking of Jordan Peterson’s women wear makeup because they want to fuck me energy
You cannot not communicate, the societal notion as to which is “good looks” for women is strongly sexualized and children are exposed to these notions from an early age. Also the subtle or less subtle social pressure plays a big role in it. A friend of mine moved from a “posh” city to mine. She said she didn’t dare going out without putting on makeup for two hours because she would get bad looks in the street otherwise and it took her a long time to unlearn that.
So while it isn’t women wearing make up because they want to fuck, the social construction that makes them feel less confident and less comfortable without make up is revolving around that and it is part of the problem. It is not that women just feel more confident with make up. It is that they feel less confident without it, because they are pressured to feel so.
Sure, but that doesn’t explain things like elaborately decorated nails. Women aren’t doing that to attract men. They’re doing it because they like the way it looks and they feel like it’s a way of expressing themselves.
Two things can be true. Makeup can be a healthy form of self-expression for people who use it AND a brick in the overall wall that is gendered oppression.
I wish we could just make makeup illegal. It’s bad for humans, it’s bad for the animals we test it on, it’s probably bad for the environment, it’s expensive, and takes a lot of time every day to apply. And as far I’m concerned it doesn’t even obtain the ostensible goal of making people more attractive. It fills no function other than to feed insecurity and fill the pockets of shareholders.
Even some men wear makeup. Every actor wears makeup. It’s been a part of human art for millenia, and only recently has developed into daily sexist expectations.
I’d be very careful about banning anything that lets people express themselves, even if most people are doing it in a way I don’t like. The external costs (pollution, animals) can be addressed with pigouvian taxes not specific to these products.
Sure, I realize it’s not realistic. Maybe we could at least change the attitude people have towards it, from “you need it to be accepted as a human being” to “it’s weird, but if you think it’s fun go for it”.
I’m a woman. We don’t do it for ourselves, we do it so outward society as a whole doesn’t call us “tired” all day. If I thought I could go into work with no makeup and not get looks or comments, I would.
And while I have my disagreement from Peterson, you’ve completely missed the point to what he said. Makeup emulates the changes a face goes through when aroused. It is tied to attraction, which is tied to sex. It’s not a difficult concept to grasp.
i just stopped wearing any makeup except lipstick and sunscreen when covid happened. i really thought about wearing it when i got my current job and decided that, if i started, i would be creating an “expectation.” i didn’t want to deal with “you look tired” on days i didn’t bother, or feel like i had to whether i wanted to mess with it or not.
now i wear makeup for fancy dress and that’s it.
but respect for people who do wear it often! i admire how nice it looks on my coworker who clearly puts time and effort into a really beautiful makeup.
I personally do it for both extrinsic and intrinsic reasons. I feel very cute with eyeshadow and mascara. Unfortunately i needed a second attempt at puberty so i also need makeup to ensure that no one gives me a hard time for my beard shadow. Including myself.
A lot of people yearn to be part of something bigger than themselves, something truly glorious, something that can give their life purpose. Some people climb the corporate ladder, others join the military, and some will selflessly dedicate their life to charity. But deep down, all we truly want is to not only see a really, really deep hole at the beach, but to know that we contributed to making such a big, cool hole in the sand.
A lot of people yearn to be part of something bigger than themselves, something truly glorious, something that can give their life purpose. Some people climb the corporate ladder, others join the military, and some will selflessly dedicate their life to charity. But deep down, all we truly want is to not only see a really, really deep hole at the beach, but to know that we contributed to making such a big, cool hole in the sand.
A lot of people yearn to be part of something bigger than themselves, something truly glorious, something that can give their life purpose. Some people climb the corporate ladder, others join the military, and some will selflessly dedicate their life to charity. But deep down, all we truly want is to not only see a really, really deep copypasta on lemmy, but to know that we contributed to making such a big, cool copypasta on lemmy.
A lot of people yearn to be part of something bigger than themselves, something truly glorious, something that can give their life purpose. Some people climb the corporate ladder, others join the military, and some will selflessly dedicate their life to charity. But deep down, all we truly want is to not only see a really, really deep hole at the beach, but to know that we contributed to making such a big, cool hole in the sand.
A lot of people yearn to be part of something bigger than themselves, something truly glorious, something that can give their life purpose. Some people climb the corporate ladder, others join the military, and some will selflessly dedicate their life to charity. But deep down, all we truly want is to not only see a really, really deep hole at the beach, but to know that we contributed to making such a big, cool hole in the sand.
A lot of people yearn to be part of something bigger than themselves, something truly glorious, something that can give their life purpose. Some people climb the corporate ladder, others join the military, and some will selflessly dedicate their life to charity. But deep down, all we truly want is to not only see a really, really deep copypasta on lemmy, but to know that we contributed to making such a big, cool copypasta on lemmy.
A lot of people yearn to be part of something bigger than themselves, something truly glorious, something that can give their life purpose. Some people climb the corporate ladder, others join the military, and some will selflessly dedicate their life to charity. But deep down, all we truly want is to not only see a really, really deep hole at the beach, but to know that we contributed to making such a big, cool hole in the sand.
Phone calls are rude. They demand your immediate attention with a loud alarm and no regard for where you might be or what you are doing. Texts/email are respectful. They make a small chime just to let you know they are around, then wait patiently for you to read and respond.
In my experience, the younger you are, the more likely you are to find phone calls to be irritating at best. People in their 20s and under almost always would prefer you to text them than call them. And I’m in my 40s and I agree. I’ve never liked the phone. I didn’t like it when it was all landlines and I don’t like it now. Texting was a godsend.
Yeah and there are also times when texting makes the situation a lot more annoying but a 2 minute phone call does the opposite. People sometimes text about things that should be a phone call and it’s just silly. As someone who has always had social anxiety especially around phone calls, I’ve learned we often ought to prioritize context over one minute of feeling anxious
I always find it weird that this issue comes up online over and over and everyone is tripping over each other to damn phone calls. Seems childish to me
Yeah and there are also times when texting makes the situation a lot more annoying but a 2 minute phone call does the opposite.
I honestly can’t think of one. I’d rather spend five minutes writing a text than two minutes on the phone. That’s two minutes I have to talk to someone without looking at them.
You live a very limited life if you can’t think of a way that writing a text message could be more difficult than speaking for a minute or two. In fact, are you a robot?
Occasionally we have to set up events and doing a conference call is a hell of a lot less annoying than doing a group chat. Anyone who doesn’t want to be part of the planning can just opt out of the call rather than have their phone bing a million times in five minutes.
Also no of course it’s not rude for you to need to adjust to other people. That’s just called society and it’s kind of weird you could be old enough to write these comments but not get that
The onus is not on me to have to debunk a position that’s only popular in certain circles. This opinion runs counter to the last 100 years of common sense.
if you find a comment on an anonymous message board saying “maybe explain” personally demanding and rude you may want to seek therapy. And no that’s not an insult, most people probably should be in therapy but if something so benign is upsetting, you might wanna prioritize it.
Because there is no reason for a company to call me unless it’s urgent, at that point it is perfectly fine to call.
Some companies call regardless of the reasons with no care at all about the customer, all just to make sure to force a response. Just send the damn message instead and If I have any sort interest, opionion, or care what so ever, then I’ll get in touch at my own discretion.
Having customers isn’t a “right” for companies, but they do seem to believe so.
Yeah I get not wanting companies to call. I just don’t really find it a huge deal. Unfortunately we get asked for our number all the time and it’s usually not needed. But in my experience they rarely ever use it at least. there are definitely times I wish they would. For example, FedEx thinks I’m not home two days in a row with a huge box of wine. If they just called I’d come out and get it and save everyone trouble. They have my number, but instead they choose to lug around a very heavy package a second day then I end up having to drive somewhere and get it later.
Which is great when people use a phone call in situations where an immediate response is warranted – not so great when I realize I’ve had the device occupying one of my hands and my attention for 10 minutes, and the speaker has yet to make a point
There are certain people who when I see calling, I just won’t pick up. On the other hand, when the phone rang at 4am and it was my brother, I knew something terrible had happened. If he had been a frequent caller/offender, I’d have silenced and ignored the call, but I’m really thankful that I picked up. It’s like a “boy who cried wolf” situation.
Why not just mute the phone while you’re not interested in being contacted synchronously, and rejecting calls when you don’t have the ability to talk synchronously?
Wild take to be honest, it’s essentially the equivalent of saying that in-person conversations are rude and that people should send you a physical letter instead.
Yeah, it’s not like we have complex social rituals, informal rules and elaborate signs and calls designed to establish the appropriateness of in-person interactions. I just punch anyone in the face that I don’t want to talk to me, that usually gets the message across. And if I want someone attention I just scream my demands at the top of my lungs an inch away from their face. If they don’t punch my face I assume they are fine with the conversation.
Because some things warrant my immediate attention, and most don’t. I am never interested in being contacted synchronously unless it’s something actually urgent. And because of that I can tell people that if they need me, they can call me and if I’m at all able I will answer immediately, otherwise I will probably answer later, aka whenever I happen to see it.
This isn’t the contradiction you make it to be. Patrick, in the first three slides, is just repeating the group’s collective consensus he was raised in.
If you really think chattel slavery was morally acceptable for the slave owners just because there was a group consensus that the slaves were inferior… then I’m willing to let you go on thinking that
edit: Thankfully, like truths in metaphysics, moral truths are not determined by group consensus. So your downvotes mean nothing lol
The point is that slavery was seen as morally acceptable at some time and the moral relativist is forced to say that that means slavery was okay during that time. Most people here want to be moral relativists but they don’t want to accept its consequences.
No they understand just fine. Here’s a quote from an ethics book that gets at the same issue:
The extreme sexism at the heart of honor killings is but one of many examples that raise doubts about cultural relativism. After all, societies are sometimes based on principles of slavery, of warlike aggression, of religious bigotry or ethnic oppression. Cultural relativism would turn these core ideals into iron-clad moral duties, making cooperation with slavery, sexism, and racism the moral duty of all citizens of those societies. The iconoclast—the person deeply opposed to conventional wisdom—would, by definition, always be morally mistaken. This has struck many people as seriously implausible.
Russ Shafer-Landau - The fundamentals of ethics p.293 (“Some Implications of Ethical Subjectivism and Cultural Relativism”)
I shared that quote to show that OP seems to know what moral relativism is, and their objection is something actual ethicists point out. I dont see what its got to do with how many people in the comments here are relativists.
There were Roman slaves devoted to their masters. They sometimes married them and often took their master’s surname name when they were freed. Then kept slaves themselves. So yes, some slaves saw slavery as acceptable.
Consensus obviously cant mean every single person agreeing, its about what the widespread view in the culture is.
Either way its a hypothetical, doesnt matter if such a culture never existed in reality: suppose slavery was condone by some culture. Wouldnt that have made it moral?
Going by the meme: if a society is mysognist you would be wiling to agree its correct for them and womens rights activist in that society should stop (theyre going against what the culture has decided is moral, making the activist immoral)?
When I asked if slavery was right for them, I wasnt trying to describe their attitudes. I am saying that a consequence of thinking cultural relativism is true is that you must admit that they were correct in the attitudes they held (because their culture agreed it was right).
a consequence of thinking cultural relativism is true is that you must admit that they were correct in the attitudes they held
No, and that’s stupid.
Let me clarify, because I want to make sure you understand. I’m not saying that I have a different take. I’m not saying that perhaps you misunderstand. I’m saying that’s a fundamentally stupid thing to believe.
The whole point of relativism is that your simplistic concept of ANYTHING being “correct” is wrong. It’s relative. It’s not correct. Nothing is correct. Some people just thought it was correct.
Relativism says there is no objective truth but you’re just for some reason trying to say that relativism believes in objective truth but only for supporting bad things. It’s a ridiculous, childish take on a philosophy and I’m having trouble understanding how you could come to that conclusion. It has the intellectual rigor of “I am rubber you are glue”.
You are thinking of nihilism (specifically error theory it seems - that there are no moral facts and people are wrong for thinking there are) because relativism (whether relative to subject or culture) doesnt deny that there are moral truths, just that they are only correct for the individual or culture that holds them.
Cultural relativism: The view that an act is morally right just because it is allowed by the guiding ideals of the society in which it is performed, and immoral just because it is forbidden by those ideals.
Ethical subjectivism: The view that an act is morally right just because (a) I approve of it, or (b) my commitments allow it. An action is wrong just because (a) I disapprove of it, or (b) my commitments forbid it.
Same book as the other comment of mine you replied to.
So, no, I didnt get it wrong. And the consequences I pointed out do follow from cultural relativism.
That’s a completely wrong and stupid definition of relativism. Either because the book is wrong, or (and I’ll grant this is a possibility, because it happens a lot and it’s why the whole field of philosophy should be killed with fire) the ivory tower academic definition has gone so far beyond reality that it’s just completely absurd, and can be safely ignored as the ravings of a lunatic.
Either way, it’s a straw man. Just in the 2nd case, there’s a small group of batshit insane losers who actually believe the straw man is a real man, and they talk with it and have tea parties and shit. And get offended when you point out that it’s made of straw and they should get mental help.
This is the definition Ive found people use when they bring up cultural relativism. Whether informally with stuff like “you cant judge them, its just their culture” or when more fleshed out. As far as I can tell, no, ethicists for and against cultural relativism are discussing something quite in touch with reality.
The author is an important figure in metaethics, its much more likely theres something you missed than him being wrong about a basic definition in a field he is an expert in.
Philosophy is weird and unique like that. The more of an expert someone is in a field, the more likely they are to be completely out of touch with reality.
I’m going to use a technique that I frequently use when discussing philosophy, to cut through the smokescreen of bullshit. Ignore your preconceived definitions. They don’t matter. Instead of “cultural relativism”, whatever you think that is, we are going to discuss “what the general population thinks of when they hear the term ‘cultural relativism’”. For short, I am going to call this Skywalker Theory. No academic has ever written about Skywalker Theory. There are no papers to reference. There’s no books, no dissertations, no letters. Skywalker Theory exists solely in the minds of people who have never gone beyond Intro to Philosophy.
Skywalker Theory says:
The idea of an objective “good” is impossible since different groups believe different things at different times. We believe in Good and Bad, but it’s really just the result of cultural conditioning.
Any time your see “Cultural Relativism”, replace that with Skywalker Theory for the purposes of this discussion.
Skywalker Theory is not fleshed out. It’s really just a premise. There’s a lot that is up for discussion. Skywalker Theory may resemble established academic philosophies like nihilism, but it is not nihilism. It doesn’t have the baggage of all the various discussions and terms and definitions and writings that the philosophy of nihilism has. You can say “nihilism says that [x]” and reference previous writings and scenarios and logical conclusions. You cannot say that about Skywalker Theory. There’s nothing to reference.
“Skywalker theory” (so far identical to error theory) isnt what the post or the discussion is about. The meme is pretty clear it is about cultural relativism and clear about what it means by cultural relativism.
If you want to bring your own objection to moral realism, sure, but it makes little sense hijacking the definition to mean something entirely different and being unhappy this wasnt what the term others were using meant.
Wrong. The OP never mentions ANY specific philosophical theory. People commenting are clearly talking about little-r relativism, the popular definition, the one I gave, not the Relativism or Realism or Nihilism or whatever else “experts” have loaded down with jargon and tangents and straw men over the decades.
Skywalker theory strips you of philosophical tricks. You have to talk about the central premise, there is nothing more. Skywalker Theory is BY DEFINITION what we are talking about.
Modern philosophy is so weighted down, it’s almost entirely a discussion about terms rather than ideas. Skywalker Theory undoes that.
OP says, “the truth of moral judgments is relative to group consensus”. That’s it. Discuss that, and just that.
OP (and the ensuing discussion) does not say “there is an objective Truth but it is whatever a group of people happens to believe at the time, especially if it’s something that I personally believe is Bad”, because that’s an absurd and contradictory statement. That absurd statement is not a part of Skywalker Theory. No one cares if it’s part of some other theory, that’s a tangent. We’re talking about Skywalker Theory.
See how it works?
You can’t say “aha, your are clearly referring to the philosophy of fish guts, and as we all know the famous Professor Poopybutt demonstrated in 1803 that a belief in fish gut philosophy requires one to break one’s own legs.” No. Stop. We are not getting bogged down in a useless conversation about some crazy bullshit. We are not talking about fishgut theory, we are talking about Skywalker Theory, and Skywalker Theory has no other sources to reference than the premise given in this post, and the ensuing discussion.
Honest question: if a person living in the west in the 21st century thinks they should have the right to take people of a different race as their own personal slaves, do you think there is no basis to call this person immoral? The best we can do is say that this person is incompatible with the time and place they are in?
Ask the slaves that lol. That argument is moot because it relies on legitimizing the oppression committed by slavers by not seeing enslaved people as part of the population/group. Their history was not recorded the same way the slaver’s history was, yet they were still humans that thought about, talked about, and theorized about morality too. You don’t get to claim to know the group consensus of a past society just because slavers used oppression to erase the viewpoints of those who disagreed.
An old anecdote from my alma mater – in an introductory course to discrete math, the professor was teaching combinatorics and began: “Suppose you have an urn with three balls inside colored red, green and blue…” At this point one of the students interjected: “Half the class are electrical engineering majors, how is any of this relevant to our studies?” there was a beat and the professor corrected himself: “Suppose you have an urn with three resistors inside colored red, green and blue…”
If sweet tea drinkers could read they’d be very upset by that graph.
…is what I was going to say, but man it took me a while to figure out and I’m still not 100% sure I really understand it. The specific gravity line and the sucrose vs solution line are tied to the sucrose dissolved in water curve, right? Wait, the left axis is merging two different scales? Sometimes data really isn’t beautiful.
The labels on the vertical axes match the labels on the lines. So the right vertical axis is for specific gravity (the grey line), and the left axis for the other two lines.
Ignore everything but the orange line and the left y-axis. It’s just showing the weight of sugar that fits in 100g of water, vs temperature. The blue one shows that value as a percentage, g sugar divided by total sugar and water.
Right but you’re forgetting there are already other things dissolved in the water as their not using pure, de-ionized water, and they’re adding in tea.
Tap water usually sits around 200 ppm or 0.02% minerals. The tea leaves themselves, as I make my tea, are around 10g/L. Say the leaves dissolve 10% as an overestimation. That gives you water with 0.1% tea, 0.02% other. The solubility limit for sugar is 63% (by mass).
In general, the amount of salts or other organic molecules do not affect the solubility of sugar (or any other solute). The solubility of any solute in water is a constant (for a given temperature), as long as whatever is already dissolved does not have any compounds or ions in common with the next solute.
For example, if we wanted to dissolve sodium chloride into a solution of potassium chloride, the amount of chloride already dissolved would affect the amount of NaCl we could dissolve. But if we wanted to dissolve NaCl into a solution of potassium iodide, the KI would have zero effect on the NaCl solubility.
So, since tea has zero molecules in common with the sucrose, the yes shouldn’t affect the solubility of sucrose at all. The only exception would be if solution is acidic, the sucrose can break down into glucose and fructose, of which the tea may have a small (negligible) amount.
Plus we’re not actually saturating the sweet tea. Saturated sugar water is a syrup, so you know just by the consistency that sweet tea is nowhere near saturated.
They’re not super saturating it. They’re putting an amount of sugar in the tea that can dissolve at room temperature, it just takes a long time to do so.
Have you seen how much sugar those hicks put into their tea though? It’s gotta be hot because they put coca cola grade amounts of sugar, to the point where it wont dissolve in the water anymore. Sweet tea contains 36-38 grams of sugar per 16 oz. That’s a fucking soft drink.
When I make my sweet tea, I use two cups per gallon, which comes out to about 50g of sugar per 16oz. And it’s delicious! It’s definitely not a “drink all the time” type drink. I only make it a few times a year for friends.
A time-proven antidote to aging is incorporating more youthful slang into your vocabulary. And before you clapback at me, I've been trying it myself and it's pretty bussin' bruh. I'm dripping all over the place now!
Man if I had more fucking ambition or energy, you’re absolutely right and I could be so rich right now but again, I’m lazy and full of depression… but if somebody runs with this idea, can I be on the team? I need a win in my life.
I’m an older guy - over 60 - and I absolutely love using slang that was popular before I was born. At work, I liberally say things like “swell,” “keen,” and “golly.” I’ve been doing it for years; when I started, everyone knew what I was doing (most laughed), but now there are a lot of folks who are young enough that they just assume it’s slang I grew up with, which makes me laugh.
Absolutely, I’m just relaying what I’ve heard in case the commenter wants to talk with some youths in their vernacular. I don’t want them to be all “holler me up my fellow kids!”
If that’s accurate then I got old way faster than I thought I would. At least I can take solace in the fact that I’m probably on the younger end of Lemmy users.
If someone blew up the toilet or smtg sus, hmu. tbh we high-key tryna glow-up this campground frfr. can’t stop won’t stop til this place straight up slays ong. need ur help fam. thx
Good good, it is an Altima, isn’t it? I didn’t dare to assume but after a bit of Googling the interior is a dead ringer for an 07-12 Altima – objectively the hooptiest of all Altimas. This guy really is a walking stereotype.
Depends on if you can’t live comfortably or not still.
The official poverty rate in the USA was 11.4% in 2020 with 37.2 million people under the poverty line. I’d wager many of them might not hold a job due to having young children as well.
That’s how I like to see us too, but I’ve definitely met some Z hating millennials.
I met a fellow “old millennial” recently who said “we’re the last generation to be raised right”. I disagree, but hearing it from a guy my age really cemented me in old man status.
Then he told me he had 3 kids. Who’s responsible for raising that generation!? Lol.
Go onto TikTok or Reddit (verboten, I know). Gen Z is currently going wild on how cooked and ruined Alpha already are.
They also have very strong opinions on what good child rearing looks like despite making up a huge portion of the child free ideology.
I generally dislike broad generational… uh generalizations. However, trends are undeniable. And as Z ages they appear to be going through Boomerification. I think that’s why so many public freakouts on service workers happen with them. Millennials have the opposite reputation, of bending over backwards to be overly polite.
Edit: to say that I’ve never seen a generation publicly express nostalgia as hard and young as Z. My older Alpha kids are sort of up there with their friends, too, but Gen Z just seems like they are retreating into a false past which never really existed as they remember it because the world is so shit.
Besides the thing about talking about how children should be raised I completely disagree. I’ve never see anyone have nostalgia for anything besides music and fashion maybe since a massive amount of us are gay or trans so there’s no reason to want to go back to the past. And every gen x or millennial I know will gladly argue with cashiers for longer than any gen z since they’re still working as cashiers and were the generation that invented the concept of Karens and watch all the “customer gets owned” " I am the manager moments"
I mean I kinda get it. I’ve met a couple of gen Alpha kids that were raised as proper iPad kids, and they are just so developmentally fucked.
They had their pad in front of then literally 24/7 playing those wierd as fuck AI kids videos on youtube or scrolling through the most mind numbing youtube shirts and would barely react to anyone in real life to the point the mum had to send him a message on the iPad to get him to respond to anything.
Even my own nephew who was raised with strict screen time limits is kinda fucked up as well. Just not as severely.
I guess you can be an honorary Xer, but I was 14 when you were born, so it’s just a fact that a lot of what I and my fellow Xers have in common time-wise is going to be significantly different. Consider; you were 7-years-old when I was 21.
lemmyshitpost
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.