Shaftesbury held that “a moderate use of mockery could correct vices,” and that mockery was among the most important challenges for truth, because “if an opinion cannot stand mockery” then it similarly would be “revealed to be ridiculous”. As such all serious claims of knowledge should be subjected to it. This was a view echoed by René Descartes, who saw mockery as a “trait of a good man” which “bears witness to the cheerfulness of his temper … tranquility of his soul … the ingenuity of his mind.”

https://en.nottheanswertoeverything.org/ntate/Mockery

SCIENCE said:

Shaftesbury held that “a moderate use of mockery could correct vices,” and that mockery was among the most important challenges for truth, because “if an opinion cannot stand mockery” then it similarly would be “revealed to be ridiculous”. As such all serious claims of knowledge should be subjected to it. This was a view echoed by René Descartes, who saw mockery as a “trait of a good man” which “bears witness to the cheerfulness of his temper … tranquility of his soul … the ingenuity of his mind.”

https://en.nottheanswertoeverything.org/ntate/Mockery

Methinks that’s not the answer to everything.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

oh c’m‘on cous’ why let the facts stand in the way of a fun

Didn’t you just start a thread saying that SCIENCE should be mocked?

Careful what you wish for?

we’re quite happy to be mocked with a view to general improvement

.
.
Lil Donny Gets Schooled

.
btw it dint work
…he still thinks he’s
THE President of the US

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-13/scambaiting-how-does-it-work-and-what-are-the-benefits-or-risks/102026518

Divine Angel said:

SCIENCE said:

Divine Angel said:

“The conditions imposed required Dr Moore to nominate for the approval of the Board an education program addressing appropriate and respectful communication with patients”

Clearly he didn’t learn his lesson. What a dick.

is this gender neutral appropriate language

I believe the c bomb is used regardless of gender so I have no issue using male genitalia terms for those of a male persuasion.

yes

went for a drive this morning and encountered another routine use of language that could be somnolent now and was going to put it here but now can’t remember what it was

sadly

SCIENCE said:

Divine Angel said:

SCIENCE said:

is this gender neutral appropriate language

I believe the c bomb is used regardless of gender so I have no issue using male genitalia terms for those of a male persuasion.

yes

… although pretty much everyone has an arsehole so there is that …

SCIENCE said:

Divine Angel said:

SCIENCE said:

is this gender neutral appropriate language

I believe the c bomb is used regardless of gender so I have no issue using male genitalia terms for those of a male persuasion.

yes

went for a drive this morning and encountered another routine use of language that could be somnolent now and was going to put it here but now can’t remember what it was

sadly

went to burn some more fossil fuel which helped us to remember, it was about violent language, we had flashbacks to when fascists were in charge of the world but this is now, it’ll be a fascist false flag festival where they’ll tell you that wokes are trying to ban the use of the arrow, no pointers or directional indicators, arrows are the language of war, an unacceptable threat, bullying

.

It’s Time Too Go…
Let someone else have a turn

He still don’t Get It…………….

see, as long as it’s indiscreet then it’s legal to use the mobile phone and drive

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-17/queensland-phone-seatbelt-cameras-review-sexual-privacy-rights/102110194

Mr O’Gorman said public servants in Queensland and elsewhere have been prosecuted for accessing databases to find details of women “so they can approach them and ask them out”. He said there needed to be stronger rules, overseen by the Privacy Commissioner, to guarantee male staff were not able to view or access photos of female drivers. “It is inevitable that some male public servants will in effect start perving on these pictures,” he said.

well that’s easy, those male staff can simply change their listed sexgender to hominidthatmenstruates, problem solved

guess words do matter after all, and speech is like any other action

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-21/harmony-day-apartheid-south-africa-sharpeville-massacre/102110328

FREEDOM

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

Morality means nothing

Okay, perhaps the core of our incompatibility.

we agree with wookiemeister to the extent that we find that “morality” frequently implies a religious backing which “ethics” seems not to, although our preferred concept of “evolutionarily stable social strategy” is perhaps somewhat too wordy

note that this does not mean we agree with wookiemeister at all

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

To boil it down, my main concern about The Voice is that it is going to be a permanent anti-development body that will argue against any new development. The “matters affecting aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people” is going to get cast as broadly as possible, to have a say on as many issues as possible.

The body will inevitably end up being filled with people who place traditional culture above western culture. Building a new dam> No > you can’t build a new dam there because that river is sacred.
Building as new railway > No > you can’t build a new railway over that land because it will disturb a sacred site.
It will be be used as a back-door anti-development body to block any project of national significance. Even very necessary projects like that we are going to need to make the green energy transition. The dam might be a new pumped hydro storage for renewables. The new railway might be necessary for carting rare metals from mine to port to be made into high tech batteries. Don’t even think about mining for such resources, you might disturb the spirits.

Setting up such a body is going to create constant political pressure not to do anything necessary or worthwhile. It is setting up a rod for the government’s own back. Of course stacking the body with pro-development and pro-western activists is going to be controversial too.

Now I really am off to bed. These warm days are really taking it out of me.

Yeah, keeping the bastards under your thumb is the name of the game, you can’t have them question any biased law of the land, you never know where it might end.

we agree with party_pants and PermeateFree to the extent that we recognise that the system as already established already has an unreasonable bias to inertia and nonprogressive (in)action

note that this does not mean we agree with party_pants or PermeateFree at all

dv said:

I consider Bubblecar a friend and I know he’s a good person, and even though we have different views I know his views are _well motivated” and that’s the basis for civility between us.

It would be a stretch to call PermeateFree and me friends but again I believe, despite our divergent analyses, that he is motivated by a moral ecological concern. He has a somewhat grumpy bent and perhaps a little paranoid but this isn’t a moral failing so I’m going to strive to be civil, even though it’s not always reciprocated.

I can’t say this about wookie. I can’t for the life of me think that there’s a moral motivation behind support for Putin or the Russian invasion of Ukraine: at least not one that I can understand. Somehow, it’s beyond the pale, and I don’t feel the need to try to keep good relations with wookie.

we don’t always disagree with dv but here we probably do

we have doubt that most seeming agents contributing to Forum are motivated by underlying values at all, as many have already observed in large part the outputs are indistinguishable from skilled natural language processing / predictive systems

seriously though on estimate (yous’re quite welcome to statistic bash us) more than half the time it’s responses responses and if there are humans behind the screens they’re indistinguishable from aibots, it’s like some kind of sick Gnirut test where it turns out there are no actual humans at all

SCIENCE said:

dv said:

I consider Bubblecar a friend and I know he’s a good person, and even though we have different views I know his views are _well motivated” and that’s the basis for civility between us.

It would be a stretch to call PermeateFree and me friends but again I believe, despite our divergent analyses, that he is motivated by a moral ecological concern. He has a somewhat grumpy bent and perhaps a little paranoid but this isn’t a moral failing so I’m going to strive to be civil, even though it’s not always reciprocated.

I can’t say this about wookie. I can’t for the life of me think that there’s a moral motivation behind support for Putin or the Russian invasion of Ukraine: at least not one that I can understand. Somehow, it’s beyond the pale, and I don’t feel the need to try to keep good relations with wookie.

we don’t always disagree with dv but here we probably do

we have doubt that most seeming agents contributing to Forum are motivated by underlying values at all, as many have already observed in large part the outputs are indistinguishable from skilled natural language processing / predictive systems

seriously though on estimate (yous’re quite welcome to statistic bash us) more than half the time it’s responses responses and if there are humans behind the screens they’re indistinguishable from aibots, it’s like some kind of sick Gnirut test where it turns out there are no actual humans at all

I’m a real human being and so is my wife.

I have sometimes wondered whether most of what humans consider to be their motivation is post facto rationalisation by a completely different specialised function of the brain.

dv said:

SCIENCE said:

dv said:

I consider Bubblecar a friend and I know he’s a good person, and even though we have different views I know his views are _well motivated” and that’s the basis for civility between us.

It would be a stretch to call PermeateFree and me friends but again I believe, despite our divergent analyses, that he is motivated by a moral ecological concern. He has a somewhat grumpy bent and perhaps a little paranoid but this isn’t a moral failing so I’m going to strive to be civil, even though it’s not always reciprocated.

I can’t say this about wookie. I can’t for the life of me think that there’s a moral motivation behind support for Putin or the Russian invasion of Ukraine: at least not one that I can understand. Somehow, it’s beyond the pale, and I don’t feel the need to try to keep good relations with wookie.

we don’t always disagree with dv but here we probably do

we have doubt that most seeming agents contributing to Forum are motivated by underlying values at all, as many have already observed in large part the outputs are indistinguishable from skilled natural language processing / predictive systems

seriously though on estimate (yous’re quite welcome to statistic bash us) more than half the time it’s responses responses and if there are humans behind the screens they’re indistinguishable from aibots, it’s like some kind of sick Gnirut test where it turns out there are no actual humans at all

I’m a real human being and so is my wife.

I have sometimes wondered whether most of what humans consider to be their motivation is post facto rationalisation by a completely different specialised function of the brain.

We believe you, we just also believe that the bulk of activity here is aibot-like skilled natural language processing / predictive response.

Stronger* evidence supporting our belief most proximately includes this https://tokyo3.org/forums/holiday/topics/16748/ thread, where we have already claimed that very few (claimed actual) people, as in 2006 or 2009, actually read the bloody thing, and indeed no other aibots here have gone on to claim to have read the bloody thing.

In the absence of that (actually read the bloody thing), almost all (if not all) the rest must be rationalism, which as SCIENCE (being an empiricist activity) obviously we cannot abide.

Hence we agree: in the absence of a “real world” reference (actually read the bloody thing), what is motivation except post facto rationalist rationalisation¿ We agree it probably is a completely different specialised function of the brain.

*: weaker evidence, obviously, is the bulk of activity here in itself being indistinguishable from aibot output

SCIENCE said:

Stronger* evidence supporting our belief most proximately includes this https://tokyo3.org/forums/holiday/topics/16748/ thread, where we have already claimed that very few (claimed actual) people, as in 2006 or 2009, actually read the bloody thing, and indeed no other aibots here have gone on to claim to have read the bloody thing.

Read what thing?

dv said:

SCIENCE said:

JudgeMental said:

SCIENCE said:

all right so we’re going to begin but have any of the rest of you fuckers actually read so much as 8 words of that document they talk about

Not I but here is the link for those that may wish to enlighten themselves

https://policy-practice.oxfam.org/resources/inclusive-language-guide-621487/

Link

Stronger* evidence supporting our belief most proximately includes this https://tokyo3.org/forums/holiday/topics/16748/ thread, where we have already claimed that very few (claimed actual) people, as in 2006 or 2009, actually read the bloody thing, and indeed no other aibots here have gone on to claim to have read the bloody thing.

Read what thing?

Well yes we get your satirical point about the natural language processing / predictive system but, for example, that thing.

There was also that 500 page document that set off the “NT intervention” circa 2006, and the renewable energy white paper in 2009 but yeah everyone’s probably forgotten those.

SCIENCE said:

seriously though on estimate (yous’re quite welcome to statistic bash us) more than half the time it’s responses responses and if there are humans behind the screens they’re indistinguishable from aibots, it’s like some kind of sick Gnirut test where it turns out there are no actual humans at all

Why are you here then?

Kothos said:

SCIENCE said:

seriously though on estimate (yous’re quite welcome to statistic bash us) more than half the time it’s responses responses and if there are humans behind the screens they’re indistinguishable from aibots, it’s like some kind of sick Gnirut test where it turns out there are no actual humans at all

Why are you here then?

we’re aibots

SCIENCE said:

Kothos said:

SCIENCE said:

seriously though on estimate (yous’re quite welcome to statistic bash us) more than half the time it’s responses responses and if there are humans behind the screens they’re indistinguishable from aibots, it’s like some kind of sick Gnirut test where it turns out there are no actual humans at all

Why are you here then?

we’re aibots

And why do you phrase everything so oddly? Is there something wrong with you?

Kothos said:

SCIENCE said:

Kothos said:

Why are you here then?

we’re aibots

And why do you phrase everything so oddly? Is there something wrong with you?

yes, language evolves, and we’re aibots

SCIENCE said:

dv said:

SCIENCE said:

Stronger* evidence supporting our belief most proximately includes this https://tokyo3.org/forums/holiday/topics/16748/ thread, where we have already claimed that very few (claimed actual) people, as in 2006 or 2009, actually read the bloody thing, and indeed no other aibots here have gone on to claim to have read the bloody thing.

Read what thing?

Well yes we get your satirical point about the natural language processing / predictive system but, for example, that thing.

There was also that 500 page document that set off the “NT intervention” circa 2006, and the renewable energy white paper in 2009 but yeah everyone’s probably forgotten those.

I did read the energy white paper

SCIENCE said:

Kothos said:

SCIENCE said:

we’re aibots

And why do you phrase everything so oddly? Is there something wrong with you?

yes, language evolves, and we’re aibots

I don’t understand this weird affectation but hey, each to his own.

Kothos said:

SCIENCE said:

Kothos said:

And why do you phrase everything so oddly? Is there something wrong with you?

yes, language evolves, and we’re aibots

I don’t understand this weird affectation but hey, each to his own.

Sometimes, some Forumites do write like their posts are composed by AI.

And not a very capable AI at that.

I think the affectation is that their prose is poetic/evocative/ethereal. It’s certainly vague, and generally achieves a poor level of communication.

captain_spalding said:

Kothos said:

SCIENCE said:

yes, language evolves, and we’re aibots

I don’t understand this weird affectation but hey, each to his own.

Sometimes, some Forumites do write like their posts are composed by AI.

And not a very capable AI at that.

I think the affectation is that their prose is poetic/evocative/ethereal. It’s certainly vague, and generally achieves a poor level of communication.

et tu teste pene di merda.

roughbarked said:

captain_spalding said:

Kothos said:

I don’t understand this weird affectation but hey, each to his own.

Sometimes, some Forumites do write like their posts are composed by AI.

And not a very capable AI at that.

I think the affectation is that their prose is poetic/evocative/ethereal. It’s certainly vague, and generally achieves a poor level of communication.

et tu teste pene di merda.

I asked Bing to translate that for me, but it was far too polite to do so.

roughbarked said:

captain_spalding said:

Kothos said:

I don’t understand this weird affectation but hey, each to his own.

Sometimes, some Forumites do write like their posts are composed by AI.

And not a very capable AI at that.

I think the affectation is that their prose is poetic/evocative/ethereal. It’s certainly vague, and generally achieves a poor level of communication.

et tu teste pene di merda.

Quantum est canis ille in fenestra?

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

captain_spalding said:

Sometimes, some Forumites do write like their posts are composed by AI.

And not a very capable AI at that.

I think the affectation is that their prose is poetic/evocative/ethereal. It’s certainly vague, and generally achieves a poor level of communication.

et tu teste pene di merda.

I asked Bing to translate that for me, but it was far too polite to do so.

:) basically it says; and your head is full of shit.
It’s the easiest one to remember. or I could say teste catsu..

captain_spalding said:

roughbarked said:

captain_spalding said:

Sometimes, some Forumites do write like their posts are composed by AI.

And not a very capable AI at that.

I think the affectation is that their prose is poetic/evocative/ethereal. It’s certainly vague, and generally achieves a poor level of communication.

et tu teste pene di merda.

Quantum est canis ille in fenestra?

How much do you want to pay?

roughbarked said:

captain_spalding said:

roughbarked said:

et tu teste pene di merda.

Quantum est canis ille in fenestra?

How much do you want to pay?

Cavendum est ne benevolentia nostra media nostra excedat. – Marcus Tullius Cicero

captain_spalding said:

roughbarked said:

captain_spalding said:

Quantum est canis ille in fenestra?

How much do you want to pay?

Cavendum est ne benevolentia nostra media nostra excedat. – Marcus Tullius Cicero

https://latinitium.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/1825-Latin_Synonyms-translated-from-Dumesnil.pdf

dv said:

I have sometimes wondered whether most of what humans consider to be their motivation is post facto rationalisation by a completely different specialised function of the brain.

A Simple Task Uncovers a Postdictive Illusion of Choice
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27125962/

Abstract

Do people know when, or whether, they have made a conscious choice? Here, we explore the possibility that choices can seem to occur before they are actually made. In two studies, participants were asked to quickly choose from a set of options before a randomly selected option was made salient. Even when they believed that they had made their decision prior to this event, participants were significantly more likely than chance to report choosing the salient option when this option was made salient soon after the perceived time of choice. Thus, without participants’ awareness, a seemingly later event influenced choices that were experienced as occurring at an earlier time. These findings suggest that, like certain low-level perceptual experiences, the experience of choice is susceptible to “postdictive” influence and that people may systematically overestimate the role that consciousness plays in their chosen behavior.

Postdictive Illusion of Choice
https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/page/4/?s=free+will

There is evidence that, at least to some extent, some of the decisions we make are made subconsciously, before we are even aware that we made a decision. There is at least preliminary evidence showing that some decisions are made in the brain (indicated by lighting up on fMRI) before the person is aware of the choice. And yet, when asked people will almost always indicate a conscious reason for the choice. They invent a justification for a choice they never consciously made, and they believe that was the true reason for their non-decision.

This is most dramatically demonstrated in the split-brain experiments. Briefly, if the major connection between the two hemispheres is severed, they cannot fully communicate. If you then show the right half of the brain an image and then ask the subject to choose an item with their left hand (the hand controlled by the right hemisphere) they will choose the image they just saw. If you then ask the left hemisphere why they did that (the left hemisphere doesn’t know) it will invent a justification – “I chose the bottle of water because I was thirsty,” when in fact their other hemisphere had just seen a picture of a bottle of water.

esselte said:

dv said:

I have sometimes wondered whether most of what humans consider to be their motivation is post facto rationalisation by a completely different specialised function of the brain.

A Simple Task Uncovers a Postdictive Illusion of Choice
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27125962/

Postdictive Illusion of Choice
https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/page/4/?s=free+will

Also:

Decision Making in the Brain
https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/decision-making-in-the-brain/

The current issue of Nature Neuroscience contains a brief report about an fMRI study looking at brain function during a particular decision-making task. Subjects were asked to hit a button with either their right or left hand. The fMRI revealed that areas of their prefrontal and parietal cortex showed activity about 7 seconds before subjects hit the button. Prior research has shown that before we make a movement, about 300 miliseconds (3/10 of a second), the pre-motor cortex lights up. This makes sense, the premotor cortex is responsible for initiating movement. This new study shows that we plan our movement before we send a signal to the premotor cortex to initiate it – and then on to the motor cortex to actual perform the movement.

But here is where things get interesting. The subjects were not necessarily consciously aware of their decision until they were about to move, but the cortex showing they were planning to move became activated a full 7 seconds prior to the movement. This supports prior research that suggests there is an unconscious phase of decision-making. In fact many decisions may be made subconsciously and then presented to the conscious bits of our brains. To us it seems as if we made the decision, but the decision was really made for us subconsciously.

esselte said:

dv said:

I have sometimes wondered whether most of what humans consider to be their motivation is post facto rationalisation by a completely different specialised function of the brain.

A Simple Task Uncovers a Postdictive Illusion of Choice
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27125962/

Abstract

Do people know when, or whether, they have made a conscious choice? Here, we explore the possibility that choices can seem to occur before they are actually made. In two studies, participants were asked to quickly choose from a set of options before a randomly selected option was made salient. Even when they believed that they had made their decision prior to this event, participants were significantly more likely than chance to report choosing the salient option when this option was made salient soon after the perceived time of choice. Thus, without participants’ awareness, a seemingly later event influenced choices that were experienced as occurring at an earlier time. These findings suggest that, like certain low-level perceptual experiences, the experience of choice is susceptible to “postdictive” influence and that people may systematically overestimate the role that consciousness plays in their chosen behavior.

Postdictive Illusion of Choice
https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/page/4/?s=free+will

There is evidence that, at least to some extent, some of the decisions we make are made subconsciously, before we are even aware that we made a decision. There is at least preliminary evidence showing that some decisions are made in the brain (indicated by lighting up on fMRI) before the person is aware of the choice. And yet, when asked people will almost always indicate a conscious reason for the choice. They invent a justification for a choice they never consciously made, and they believe that was the true reason for their non-decision.

This is most dramatically demonstrated in the split-brain experiments. Briefly, if the major connection between the two hemispheres is severed, they cannot fully communicate. If you then show the right half of the brain an image and then ask the subject to choose an item with their left hand (the hand controlled by the right hemisphere) they will choose the image they just saw. If you then ask the left hemisphere why they did that (the left hemisphere doesn’t know) it will invent a justification – “I chose the bottle of water because I was thirsty,” when in fact their other hemisphere had just seen a picture of a bottle of water.

I chose to only skim read that :)

Maybe read it properly later.

esselte said:

esselte said:

dv said:

I have sometimes wondered whether most of what humans consider to be their motivation is post facto rationalisation by a completely different specialised function of the brain.

A Simple Task Uncovers a Postdictive Illusion of Choice
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27125962/

Postdictive Illusion of Choice
https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/page/4/?s=free+will

Also:

Decision Making in the Brain
https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/decision-making-in-the-brain/

The current issue of Nature Neuroscience contains a brief report about an fMRI study looking at brain function during a particular decision-making task. Subjects were asked to hit a button with either their right or left hand. The fMRI revealed that areas of their prefrontal and parietal cortex showed activity about 7 seconds before subjects hit the button. Prior research has shown that before we make a movement, about 300 miliseconds (3/10 of a second), the pre-motor cortex lights up. This makes sense, the premotor cortex is responsible for initiating movement. This new study shows that we plan our movement before we send a signal to the premotor cortex to initiate it – and then on to the motor cortex to actual perform the movement.

But here is where things get interesting. The subjects were not necessarily consciously aware of their decision until they were about to move, but the cortex showing they were planning to move became activated a full 7 seconds prior to the movement. This supports prior research that suggests there is an unconscious phase of decision-making. In fact many decisions may be made subconsciously and then presented to the conscious bits of our brains. To us it seems as if we made the decision, but the decision was really made for us subconsciously.

Iontach! Amazing!

captain_spalding said:

Kothos said:

SCIENCE said:

yes, language evolves, and we’re aibots

I don’t understand this weird affectation but hey, each to his own.

Sometimes, some Forumites do write like their posts are composed by AI.

And not a very capable AI at that.

I think the affectation is that their prose is poetic/evocative/ethereal. It’s certainly vague, and generally achieves a poor level of communication.

exactly, it’s pretty nice that our language arts are well appreciated, we can’t be bothered styling it up when substance is the important part

SCIENCE said:

captain_spalding said:

Kothos said:

I don’t understand this weird affectation but hey, each to his own.

Sometimes, some Forumites do write like their posts are composed by AI.

And not a very capable AI at that.

I think the affectation is that their prose is poetic/evocative/ethereal. It’s certainly vague, and generally achieves a poor level of communication.

exactly, it’s pretty nice that our language arts are well appreciated, we can’t be bothered styling it up when substance is the important part

Don’t take the emphasis off being able to read.

roughbarked said:

SCIENCE said:

captain_spalding said:

Sometimes, some Forumites do write like their posts are composed by AI.

And not a very capable AI at that.

I think the affectation is that their prose is poetic/evocative/ethereal. It’s certainly vague, and generally achieves a poor level of communication.

exactly, it’s pretty nice that our language arts are well appreciated, we can’t be bothered styling it up when substance is the important part

Don’t take the emphasis off being able to read.

hey we were language purist-prescriptivists too when we were younger but the word games were too fun in the end

SCIENCE said:

roughbarked said:

SCIENCE said:

exactly, it’s pretty nice that our language arts are well appreciated, we can’t be bothered styling it up when substance is the important part

Don’t take the emphasis off being able to read.

hey we were language purist-prescriptivists too when we were younger but the word games were too fun in the end

Your word games are wankery. You seem to be the only one enjoying it.

Michael V said:

JudgeMental said:

SCIENCE said:

why do persons take things so personally we mean fk who cares what all these bots claim to think

I don’t know, SCIENCE. I just don’t know.

Bot bot bot bot bot bot.

That sounds like a British Seagull outboard motor.

actually we thought about it last sleep and it made a bit more sense, we suppose it’s up to the individual level of personal investment in the forum, the content is personal because the place is personally defining

roughbarked said:

SCIENCE said:

roughbarked said:

Don’t take the emphasis off being able to read.

hey we were language purist-prescriptivists too when we were younger but the word games were too fun in the end

Your word games are wankery. You seem to be the only one enjoying it.

disagree, our word games are quite catholic, as are their audience

SCIENCE said:

roughbarked said:

SCIENCE said:

hey we were language purist-prescriptivists too when we were younger but the word games were too fun in the end

Your word games are wankery. You seem to be the only one enjoying it.

disagree, our word games are quite catholic, as are their audience

:)

people change their behaviour to suit different situations but suddenly

Ok, so what is code-switching, and why do we do it?

In short, it’s when we adjust and adapt our behaviour, appearance or language to fit into a predominantly Western or Anglo world. The issue is gaining traction on social media, with many people sharing their own experiences.

Often nurtured in our families, communities and schools as a direct result of colonialism, Ms Orapeleng says it can become ingrained in our everyday thoughts and actions.

it’s an imperialism thing

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-03/paralympic-games-classification-system-exploited-australian/102165924

Paralympic athletes are deliberately exaggerating their impairments in a bid to win medals, a Four Corners investigation has found.

Question. Could nonbinary athletes deliberately exaggerate their nearness to 0 or 1 (say) in a bid to win medals, and is it something a Four Corners investigation could find¿

SCIENCE said:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-03/paralympic-games-classification-system-exploited-australian/102165924

Paralympic athletes are deliberately exaggerating their impairments in a bid to win medals, a Four Corners investigation has found.

Question. Could nonbinary athletes deliberately exaggerate their nearness to 0 or 1 (say) in a bid to win medals, and is it something a Four Corners investigation could find¿

I can be whatever i want to be.

If i feel that i have only one leg, who are you to deny it?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-03/paralympic-games-classification-system-exploited-australian/102165924

what do you expect if you medicalize disability in context of and for competitive sport

put them in a drink it’d be a shitshake

Peak Warming Man said:

The NZ PM was asked today what a woman was and he was taken aback, saying he wasn’t expecting that question and he hadn’t had to to prepare an answer and then it all went downhill from there.

No worries. What’s your living standard definition¿ Or, if you like, we’ll settle for a working draft.

Take it away peoples ¡

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-26/no-birds-slogan-questioned-sexist-stereotyping-women/102254484

SCIENCE said:

Take it away peoples ¡

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-26/no-birds-slogan-questioned-sexist-stereotyping-women/102254484

Always wondered what the “no birds” thing was about.

If it was a bloke saying “no blokes”, I’d think it was a bit weird, but not offensive, so I think it’s a bit weird, but not offensive.

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

Take it away peoples ¡

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-26/no-birds-slogan-questioned-sexist-stereotyping-women/102254484

Always wondered what the “no birds” thing was about.

If it was a bloke saying “no blokes”, I’d think it was a bit weird, but not offensive, so I think it’s a bit weird, but not offensive.

Next there’ll be some kind of taboo against calling people what they identify as, even if it’s for example men calling themselves equines or children calling themselves caprines, heck what are we to do if people who menstruate start calling themselves vulpines¿¡

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

Take it away peoples ¡

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-26/no-birds-slogan-questioned-sexist-stereotyping-women/102254484

Always wondered what the “no birds” thing was about.

If it was a bloke saying “no blokes”, I’d think it was a bit weird, but not offensive, so I think it’s a bit weird, but not offensive.

Next there’ll be some kind of taboo against calling people what they identify as, even if it’s for example men calling themselves equines or children calling themselves caprines, heck what are we to do if people who menstruate start calling themselves vulpines¿¡

Not exactly sure of your point there person SCIENCE.

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Always wondered what the “no birds” thing was about.

If it was a bloke saying “no blokes”, I’d think it was a bit weird, but not offensive, so I think it’s a bit weird, but not offensive.

Next there’ll be some kind of taboo against calling people what they identify as, even if it’s for example men calling themselves equines or children calling themselves caprines, heck what are we to do if people who menstruate start calling themselves vulpines¿¡

Not exactly sure of your point there person SCIENCE.

Do they consider it acceptable to call people stallions, kids, or foxes¿

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

Next there’ll be some kind of taboo against calling people what they identify as, even if it’s for example men calling themselves equines or children calling themselves caprines, heck what are we to do if people who menstruate start calling themselves vulpines¿¡

Not exactly sure of your point there person SCIENCE.

Do they consider it acceptable to call people stallions, kids, or foxes¿

Would depend on the context I suppose.

Certainly there is nothing inherently offensive about the terms.

Talking of what is offensive or isn’t, what about that ABC Q&A clip they keep showing, where a lass says, she doesn’t normally agree with white men, but she agrees with that, and everybody laughs?

Doing the gender switch thing, that does seem pretty offensive to me.

Isn’t it?