64
Suspicious Quotes (sopuli.xyz)
submitted 3 months ago by Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz to c/casualconversation@lemm.ee
14 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Have you noticed that many quotes attributed to famous people are actually incorrect? When someone sends me one of these fancy quotes of profound wisdom, it looks really suspicious to me if:

  1. It’s a picture (as in, not text in a technical sense)
  2. It’s attributed to someone famous
  3. There’s a picture of that person
  4. There’s no source

When I start looking into it, I usually end up reading a quote investigator article that says the original line was written a few hundred of years ago, got mutated many times along the way, and eventually was coupled with the name of someone like Nikola Tesla, Albert Einstein or whatever.

BTW I put that picture together using Imgflip’s meme generator. Seemed appropriate.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz 2 points 3 months ago

Oh, wow. That’s a new one. I don’t use Facebook or Xitter, so I guess that’s why I don’t bump into breathtakingly amazing stuff like that.

[-] ZDL@ttrpg.network 2 points 3 months ago

Weird thing is nor do I. Sadly I have people who keep sending things to me asking if this is real or not. (I guess I'm the only person in my social circle with about a third of the Confucian canon on my bookshelf.)

this post was submitted on 15 Feb 2025
64 points (100.0% liked)

Casual Conversation

3325 readers
213 users here now

Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you'll make some friends in the process.

RULES (updated 01/22/25)

  1. Be respectful: no harassment, hate speech, bigotry, and/or trolling. To be concise, disrespect is defined by escalation.
  2. Encourage conversation in your OP. This means including heavily implicative subject matter when you can and also engaging in your thread when possible. You won't be punished for trying.
  3. Avoid controversial topics (politics or societal debates come to mind, though we are not saying not to talk about anything that resembles these). There's a guide in the protocol book offered as a mod model that can be used for that; it's vague until you realize it was made for things like the rule in question. At least four purple answers must apply to a "controversial" message for it to be allowed.
  4. Keep it clean and SFW: No illegal content or anything gross and inappropriate. A rule of thumb is if a recording of a conversation put on another platform would get someone a COPPA violation response, that exact exchange should be avoided when possible.
  5. No solicitation such as ads, promotional content, spam, surveys etc. The chart redirected to above applies to spam material as well, which is one of the reasons its wording is vague, as it applies to a few things. Again, a "spammy" message must be applicable to four purple answers before it's allowed.
  6. Respect privacy as well as truth: Don’t ask for or share any personal information or slander anyone. A rule of thumb is if something is enough info to go by that it "would be a copyright violation if the info was art" as another group put it, or that it alone can be used to narrow someone down to 150 physical humans (Dunbar's Number) or less, it's considered an excess breach of privacy. Slander is defined by intentional utilitarian misguidance at the expense (positive or negative) of a sentient entity. This often links back to or mixes with rule one, which implies, for example, that even something that is true can still amount to what slander is trying to achieve, and that will be looked down upon.

Casual conversation communities:

Related discussion-focused communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
orangeNgreen@lemmy.world
neidu2@feddit.nl
BoozeOrWater@lemm.ee