this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2023
667 points (95.9% liked)

Microblog Memes

5153 readers
1035 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

karcatgirl-vantas:

the default way for things to taste is good. we know this because "tasty" means something tastes good. conversely, from the words "smelly" and "noisy" we can conclude that the default way for things to smell and sound is bad. interestingly there are no corresponding adjectives for the senses of sight and touch. the inescapable conclusion is that the most ordinary object possible is invisible and intangible, produces a hideous cacophony, smells terrible, but tastes delicious. and yet this description matches no object or phenomenon known to science or human experience. so what the fuck

skluug:

this is what ancient greek philosophy is like

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 59 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (6 children)

This is very much "I am 14 and this is deep" territory.

Adjectives describe. By using them, we are emphasising a quality of a given thing. That does not make it the "default state" (a problematic concept) of that object, even if it is a desirable quality.

The "default state" of food is that it is edible, ie. that it can be eaten, as food is defined as that which is edible.

there are no corresponding adjectives for the senses of sight and touch

Visible. Tactile.

Noisy

Even by OPs logic, "noise" is not one of the senses. Audible is the correct word here.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_universals

[–] [email protected] 14 points 10 months ago (1 children)

If you think the original poster was even remotely serious you need to take a break and expose yourself to... Idk, Conversation? More comedy? Media literacy lessons?

If this was your attempt at comedy, drop the first sentence and be more belligerent in your indignation.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Sure bud.

#iam14anduhhiwasactuallyjoking

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Lmao it is very obviously facetious

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

You probably shouldn't use words that you don't understand

But go ahead, give us a close reading and explain where the humour lies.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

The punchline is the comment about how the OP is like Green philosophy.

You're picking apart the setup, not the punchline, and therefore being "that guy" who ruins the joke.

Stop it.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago (2 children)

... All the comments. They're all missing the point that some Greek philosophy and classical rhetoric is indeed like this. This is where I'm pretty arm's length with some schools of thought; it sometimes all seems constructed on some dubious first principles, or leaps of logic.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

It's right there in the first sentence. Even toddlers learn pretty damn fast that the "default" of all things is the furthest thing from "tasty".

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

The podcast "unexplainable" did an episode like this. It's called, "Does Garlic Break Magnets?" It's kinda fun, honestly.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Why can the replier in the screenshot poke fun at the nonsensical nature of the first post but not us in the comments?

How does that ruin the joke for you?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (3 children)

BECAUSE THE FIRST POST IS THE SETUP AND THE SECOND POST IS THE PUNCHLINE. THEY ARE BOTH PART OF THE JOKE. WE ARE NOT.

GOSH.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

Today or in general?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

I'm sorry things get ruined for you so easily

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

There is no joke bud. It's just someone being dumb, and your defensive attitude suggests you didn't understand that when you posted.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The Internet is serious business!

Bud!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

Oh no I'm not as smart as I thought I was, quick better do some S A R C A S M !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"l

[–] [email protected] -2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

It's not a joke, it is indeed true that a lot of early Greek philosopy featured that style of logic, which you would know if you'd ever paid attention in school or actually read a book.

Eg. Diogenes refuting Plato's definition of a man.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Random internet commenter status: owned!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Wow !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You really suck ar covering up your pre-pubescent insecurities!

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago

In your philosophical knowledge, is there a need for a iam14andthisisdeep community? I pretty much think that the sum of a determined number of children make up of a real adult.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

Exactly, and on top of that this only works in English and only in dialects where these words are used that way.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yeah I'm not sure how they concluded "there's a word for this therefore it describes a default object"

Man that car was speedy! Therefore the default speed is fast.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That really is more or less how Greek philosophy worked.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The joke reply is great but the initial post not so much

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The initial post was also a joke. The greatness will be relative.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

What's supposed to be funny about it? Plain stupidity isn't humour.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I think of you and immediately get bored

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

I don't think about you at all.

You still obviously have no idea what this post is about.