1018
Politeness
(files.catbox.moe)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Jan 2025
1018 points (97.7% liked)
Funny
8114 readers
812 users here now
General rules:
- Be kind.
- All posts must make an attempt to be funny.
- Obey the general sh.itjust.works instance rules.
- No politics or political figures. There are plenty of other politics communities to choose from.
- Don't post anything grotesque or potentially illegal. Examples include pornography, gore, animal cruelty, inappropriate jokes involving kids, etc.
Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
There are subjects in which I have formal training and extensive experience in. Here I speak with authority and don't use slippery language; I may even cite sources.
There are other subjects that I read about once probably somewhere on the internet at some point in the last 25 years or so. Here I will phrase it as "If I understand correctly" or I might even pose it as a question inviting others to correct me.
I went to flight school during the time when we all thought System of a Down had recorded a song about the Legend of Zelda. If you don't have an internal rating system about how reliably you "know" the things you "know" you're probably not worth listening to.
Grammar clearly not being one of them.
I kid. Sorry, I’m a sucker for low hanging fruit.
My college public speaking teacher was also so sure that "wuddn't" is not a word. y'all gotta problem w'how I tawk can get axe fucked. I'm drunk enough to let out the drawl, c'mon nao.
What fruit does grammar prescriptivist based dunking bear?
I will use slippery language for every statement unless you are family or you are paying 100$/hr 4 hours minimum. And then I will phrase in terms of "the trade offs and decisions that are available to you and why"
You sound useless.
That may or may not be the case, it's true that you get what you pay for but sometimes you also get more than you bargained for. Really, it's up to you and your risk tolerance level about possibly over paying for advice or risk missing out on a valuable advice. Anyway, I'm not here to tell you what to do, because you're paying me enough.
The last sentence actually sounds incredibly helpful.
Lotta potential positions you could take with regards to that system, y'know. cracks epistemological knuckles, what ya got? How do you decide how much weight to attribute to a fact you heard someone else tell you? Who? In what context? That stuff doesn't, I believe, have a pithy answer
We are in a post-trust world. We're all probably better off just swimming out to sea.
Shit I never responded. But I hard disagree
See, if you can't trust anyone, your ability
To fabricate a plausible model of reality
Is compromised.
Nobody can interpret the world alone.
No small group can.
Too much is known.
I think a problem might be that even if you have an internal rating system, it's still a spectrum and the other person doesn't know what that percentage of confidence you have is. If you're 95℅ sure, maybe you still want to communicate that it isn't 100℅ since assuming you're 100℅ sure might cause problems.
Things change all the time, even if it's part of your field of expertise. Today, gorillas are technically monkeys and Pluto isn't a planet, but lots of people are sure those aren't true.
Well congratulations you just re-derived citing sources from first principles.