hakase
Still not buying a Samsung.
Best admin. <3
The worst part of this comic is that philosophy bro is clearly not even very good at his field, since there’s a much better Cartesian parallel to be made here (and I’m not even a philosopher).
“I think, therefore I am” is actually leaving out (imo) the most important part of Descartes’s argument. He was trying to find literally anything that he could know without a doubt was true. The problem is, that’s really hard, as our existence-troubled shopper has discovered. Descartes could doubt the existence of God, he could doubt the existence of goodness, of truth. All of these things might not actually exist. Descartes could even doubt his own existence.
In fact, literally the only thing Descartes could conclude without a doubt was true was the fact that he was doubting at all. So, since that’s the only thing he could be sure of, that’s what he built his argument for rationalism upon.
This perfectly mirrors the existential crisis the so-called philosopher comes upon, but instead of starting the shopper right where Descartes started, he instead just provides what must seem like almost a non sequitur in context, since if the man is currently doubting his existence, he can also doubt that he’s thinking. What he cannot doubt, is that he is in fact doubting.
“I doubt. Therefore, I think. I think, therefore I am.”
To everyone attempting to reply to the above comment in good faith, remember that the only way to productively engage with a hexbear is to not engage at all. Trying to do so is what started this whole kerfuffle in the first place.
Don’t feed the trolls.
Edit: Note the bait below, and note how I’m not wasting my time engaging with it.
Like practically all herbivores, especially large ones, hippos are more than happy to eat meat whenever they can opportunistically do so, and are actually much more likely to do so than other large herbivores because of how effective they are at killing other animals. They’ve been known to kill and eat animals as large as wildebeest and zebras.
“A paper from Duke University”. This is a random, non-peer-reviewed, undergrad honors thesis. Having supervised honors theses myself, they are not exactly the height of sociological research. Also note that the author only proposes “throughlines” between eugenics and Melinda Gates’ work, by definition flimsy and tenuous, at best.
This is a perfect example of a Facebook conspiracy theory, based on shoddy, non-peer-reviewed, amateur “research”, but appealing to authority by attributing the paper to “Duke University”, with no understanding of the academic context of the paper in question.
Can you please tell me what the issue is with zifnab’s comment? Why do you feel like the comment would be more at home in a facebook conspiracy theory group?
Jesus Christ you can smell the hexbear from a mile away. Go sealion somewhere else.
For anyone else reading this, the problems with the other two “sources” are that the WaPo article is just an opinion piece disguised as “analysis”, and the Guardian source (an editorialized version of a much better Wall Street Journal piece) seems to actually imply that Gates didn’t pay any hush money to Epstein. Either way, it does make it clear that Epstein had nothing to do with Gates’ affair whatsoever, and was just trying to profiteer off it.
Note the fact that the language used by the hexbear above effectively claims the opposite of what their source implies, and leaves out the fact that there’s no evidence for any of these assertions. Never blindly trust a source from a hexbear. Actually, never trust a “source” from a hexbear at all, for that matter.
Edit: Also, for anyone reading this, only ever comment on the errors in a hexbear’s sources and arguments - don’t ever actually engage with a hexbear themselves, because your good faith will be wasted on their disingenuousness. This comment is just a fact-checking PSA for anyone who wondered about the reliability (or lack thereof) of the above sources. Note also the bullshit asymmetry principle well at work here.
Such a classic track. Always been one of my absolute favorites.
I vote nay to defederation (as I almost always will). If a problem can be solved simply by blocking two bots, then there is no need whatsoever to resort to defederation.
I understand your “new user” problem argument, but I think it’s really a non-issue. Lemmy already has a much higher learning curve than a site like reddit, and I think the number of people who aren’t put off by Lemmy’s learning curve but are put off having to figure out how to block two users is pretty close to the empty set.