There’s actually some useful information here if you ignore the hyperbole.
If you act like a jerk and are mean to people, you will drive people away from your causes, even if you are taking a position that is strongly defensible from a moral and ethical view. If you take the view that “I don’t have to do the emotional labor to educate you, OMG read some theory, you’re fucking stupid if you can’t understand this, you don’t deserve to live if you think Y,” etc. you aren’t going to win people over. And yes, if you are always acting like an asshole, you’re probably going to drive people away that believe similarly to you, because they won’t want to be associated with assholes. That’s human nature, and something that you need to learn to contend with if you want to win adherents to any political or social position.
In other words: leftists and feminists, fucking get over yourselves.. You may not want to put in the emotional labor because it’s exhausting, but you know who will? Fascists, nationalists, misogynists, and religious fundamentalists. If you just want to make fun of and vent at people on the right, you’re only creating a more insular group that more and more people are going to end up hating. See also: hexbear,
My human nature wanted to rail against what you were saying at a certain point (especially when you called out feminists and leftists) since I can relate to your target audience, but yeah. Good words.
FWIW, I am very much a leftist. I’m mostly an anarchist, although I also recognize that having a large, diverse, functioning society is extremely difficult–bordering on impossible–without some degree of authoritarian control. (And I’ve also seen just how paralyzed radically democratic groups can get, when they have to vote on everything.) I want the people on the left, the people that want a more equal society, to do better, because I think we can be better.
Being kind to people–not fake kindness, not kindness with an agenda, but just kind–can go a long ways for leftists. For women, well, I’m not a woman. But having women as friends and them being open with me about what they experienced as women went a long way towards opening my eyes.
And, FWIW, I started from a position of being deeply conservative, very religious, and having absolutist views on gender identity and gender roles, and the godly nature of capitalism.
there’s a number of inauthentic right wingers that happily pose as leftists online to spur these sorts of things, its not something you can stop by lecturing people in online spaces.
This is good in person advice but in most cases this is a mostly online issue where bad actors and children are over represented.
I’ve absolutely, definitely met people IRL that have argued in exactly the way I outline. …Although “argue” is charitable, since they’re just haranguing their victim subject. I’ve also known plenty of people that claim that they know they aren’t going to change the mind of the person they’re verbally assaulting–because people can’t change, I guess?–but that they want to win the hearts of the people observing. …Which they also aren’t doing, since they’re appearing to be mean-spirited to observers. (And yes, there’s nuance here, and I still firmly believe in punching Nazis.)
David McRaney has been talking for a while about what actually works for changing the way people think and believe (and he just recently published, “How Minds Change”), and Anthony Magnabosco has been posting street epistemology videos on YouTube for years. Both of them have found–to be really reductive–that you need to emotionally connect with the person you’re talking to, and you need to ask open-ended questions that allow them to consider the foundations for their beliefs.
And to your point, yes, that’s hard to do online. I get it. I often fall into the trap of arguing instead of being empathetic. So I need to take my own advice.
The thing is that the botanical definition of berries doesn’t match perfectly with the everyday definition. That doesn’t make the latter wrong, it just has other applications
Come up with an everyday definition for berry that includes strawberries, blueberries, and raspberries but excludes grapes, figs, and cherry tomatoes without identifying any particular fruit by name.
I mean, it isn’t meaningless, just culturally subjective and lacking a rigerous definition. Berries are a set of specific fruit, which fruit being included being determined by the culture in question base on percieved similarities and historic uses. We use it to quickly bring up the specific group and whatever vague characteristics we percieve them to share.
So, the definition for berries that you seek is simply “the fruit people you’re interested in would point at and identify as a berry”, which is a vague definition and not rigerous at all, but most people would in fact think of the same thing you do if you say “I put berries on top of my cake”. If I ask my wife “hey, on your way home swing by the store and buy some berries, any type will do”, she will not bring a watermelon. She in fact will buy what we both agree are berries, and so the word has useful meaning.
You’ll find most classifications humans have do this too. The real world is really good at refusing to fit into the neat boxes we made to classify it and the things in it, and yet we can still use them fine enough as long as we don’t get lost in semantics and wondering if a hot dog is a sandwich or cereal soup.
I could try to but I don’t need to. The fact that you could easily name some fruits that aren’t berries is proof enough that you have a concept of what a berry is and what isn’t. Coming up with a definition would be the next step.
So I agree that “definition” is the wrong word. I should have said “concept”. Besides: what’s wrong with definitions that are just a list of elements?
I mean personally I always thought it was fucking stupid that a strawberry is the same kind of thing as a blueberry but a grape isn’t. Apparently Iceland agrees.
It’s all a social construct. It exists because and as long as we all agree on it. So it’s flexible and not set in stone, nor scientifically falsifiable
Yeah, it’s like the whole “tomatoes are actually a fruit” thing. So are zucchinis and eggplants, but nobody ever brings that up. It’s always tomatoes.
There’s a botanical definition and a culinary definition. So, that doesn’t mean that somebody who calls a tomato a vegetable is wrong. And don’t put any tomatoes in my fruit salad!
Vegetable is also exclusively a culinary definition. Vegetables are essentially any edible plant structure that are not sweet and aren’t the seeds directly (which are grains or nuts). Typically vegetables are flowers, leaves, stems, or roots, but some non-sweet fruits like cucumbers, peppers, and green beans are also squarely in the vegetable category despite definitely being fruits, no reason they can’t be both.
Carrots, corn, and peas all poke holes in that definition. It’s a culinary definition but also an arbitrary and subjective one, trying to define rules just makes it more ridiculous.
And the concept of a vegetable varies culturally. I live in Germany and I consider mais vegetables (it feels weird to call it corn in this context since other grains aren’t). In Romania (and elsewhere I guess) potatoes are a vegetable which they aren’t for me.
I feel like the people who would be depressed if they were smarter are already the dumb angry people. They’re angry about all the bad things that happen to them without the exhaustion of seeing the next thing coming.
Fun fact: Strawberry is called an accessory fruit because its seeds are on the outside, so the seeds themselves are the real “fruits” (in the same way each grain of rice or wheat is itself a fruit, well technically the fruit consists of the grain plus the outer pod/husk that gets removed when harvested). The red flesh we like to eat is the accessory fruit because it in itself does not contain seeds.
Raspberries and blackberries are called aggregate fruits because they’re essentially many fruits attached together as a single structure. Actually, a strawberry is called an aggregate accessory fruit because it has many “fruits” directly attached to an accessory structure.
Yeah. If university bio has taught me anything it’s that botany classifications are way more numerous, way more complex, and have way more exceptions than zoology classifications (not to undermine zoology of course, it’s also super complicated). There’s just far more diversity in how different plants accomplish the same things compared to how different animals accomplish them, which makes sense since plants are quite a bit older than animals and also have way more species.
Some of my profs did! I had one class where the prof would have optional “bonus content” not in the syllabus as a further incentive for people to come to class instead of just reading the lecture slides later.
comicstrips
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.