1880
unleash your humanities (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] arotrios@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago
[-] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -1 points 5 days ago

Just to interject a reminder:

The opposite of nazism/fascism is not communism/stalinism, it's lib-left.

If you passionately hate nazis and all they're about like I do, you see Stalin as the same jackboot with a different color uniform.

[-] booly@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 days ago
[-] Lucky_777@lemmy.world 164 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Got perm banned from Reddit because I said all Nazis can go kill themselves. Worth it

[-] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 44 points 1 week ago
[-] thefluffiest@feddit.nl 32 points 1 week ago

“Nazi lives matter”

[-] LeninOnAPrayer@lemm.ee 27 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I see this comment a lot on Lemmy and it's disturbing. I too was perma banned for telling a Nazi to "go to hell". 10 year old account with no prior bans.

[-] ameancow@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Welcome to the club. 12 year account for me, I told off some mysgonistic redpiller who called another user a slur, I quoted the slur so he couldn't edit, told him to go fuck himself with a telephone pole, the kind with all the nails from years of posters being posted on it, and then reported him.

Mods banned me for "incivility and using a gendered slur," took no action on the other user, I appealed it, they acted like pubescent fucksticks, so to keep talking to people I knew in that community I made a new account, then admins perma-IP-banned me for ban evasion.

I've been fighting this so long that I'm now instantly shadowbanned across all of youtube, google and reddit every time I make a new account. They've gotten very good at silencing users so that their bot-army can simulate human society and adjust our narratives at will. (Yes, google and reddit work together to produce AI bots, they announced it a while back, nobody paid attention.)

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 19 points 1 week ago

I just said punching. Worth it.

[-] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 12 points 1 week ago

You can't say that! How am I supposed to kill them myself?

[-] Lucky_777@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

Yeah, kind of "killing the fun" right?! Lmao

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 137 points 1 week ago

I like your take, but I still prefer this iteration:

[-] Jankatarch@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago

Did they reinvent the onion?

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] theneverfox@pawb.social 83 points 1 week ago

I say we normalize this

"Hi, I'm here to punch Nazis and get and an oil change"

Make everyone declare they have no Nazis before you get into business

[-] gibmiser@lemmy.world 35 points 1 week ago
[-] fossilesque@lemmy.dbzer0.com 31 points 1 week ago
  1. Show up.
  2. Punch nazis.
  3. ??? (CREATE SOMETHING NEW)
  4. Profit!!!
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] oxysis@lemm.ee 79 points 1 week ago

Remember kids, the only good Nazi is a dead Nazi!

[-] jabathekek@sopuli.xyz 49 points 1 week ago

I'm here to drink milk and kill nazis... and I'm lactose intolerant. >:(

[-] SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org 12 points 1 week ago

I like soy milk and dead nazis :3

[-] fossilesque@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 week ago

Soy is delicious and I don't know why it's an insult lol.

[-] MutilationWave@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 1 week ago

Because idiots think that eating foods that contain phytoestrogens like soy turn you into a girly man or some shit. The deterioration of education in the US and social media everywhere have ruined us.

[-] ZkhqrD5o@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

Funniest thing is, the same men who use it as an insult, drink beer (Beer stimulates estrogen production). I've never seen anyone eat 500g of soy in one sitting. With pints, it's a different story, however. Oh, the irony.

[-] Ledericas@lemm.ee 4 points 1 week ago

its why gymbros believe, they think they will lose thier muscle mass, testosterone from it.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today 22 points 1 week ago

The humanities do not tolerate inhumanity

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] RedSnt@feddit.dk 9 points 1 week ago

It's sad, but for studies that don't result in income for the government, they're just not interested in funding it. You wanna know about philosophy? Tough shit. We need more people for the fulfillment centers, you better get good at holding in your pee.

[-] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

I have a hard time understanding why we should fund philosophy studies with government money. I would need some convincing.

Feel free to comment here your best arguments for it.

[-] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 6 days ago

Do you want anyone other than priests advising government officials on ethics? Then you want philosophy majors.

[-] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Why would a philosophy major would have better ethics than my, for instance?

Ethics are greatly influenced by so many aspects different to whatever career someone chose to study.

And we could cut the middleman just voting and electing people with the same ethical values as me. It would be a piss off democracy if I chose a representantive who campaigned for painting all buses blue because I share that view just for some unelected person coming to say "no that's not ethical you shall not do that".

Ethics of a society emerge from the society, not from a few individuals. Every person have a set of values and in democracies we chose what are the government positions on those values by voting. I think moral lobbing by a few selected individuals would be bad, no matter if priest of philosophy majors.

[-] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 4 points 6 days ago

Philosophy is the science of thinking.

You are already doing it on an amateur level. Imagine what a professional would be capable of.

[-] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

I only consider science those fields that can describe nature and assert this depiction of nature vie repeatable experiments. Thus I don't agree on philosophy being a science.

I algo don't agree that a professional would have better morals than me. Due the personal nature of what morality is.

Imagine I say my morals are the best, how is any professional philosopher to prove me wrong? It's not possible. But if I say that "climate change is not real" a lot of climate scientist could show me evidence and offer me a set of experiments to undoubtedly prove me wrong.

I think of philosophy as a form of literature.

[-] frezik@midwest.social 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

What we now call science developed directly out of philosophy. You don't get to have science without it.

[-] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

And the bible used to be considered an explanation on the origins of earth and the human being.

Luckily as time goes on humanity have been able to understand nature in better ways than we used to.

[-] frezik@midwest.social 1 points 6 days ago

That is so utterly stupid that it shows why you should take a philosophy course.

[-] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

I actually have. And I have read a LOT and I mean a LOT of philosophy.

All the great philosophers of history to begin with. I have read all their most famous works. And I have enjoyed them. I think they are great read. But great LITERATURE read. Not scientific reads.

I still think they are not science, as they do not describe nature. They just give opinions on several matters. And the few who dared to make any predictions about the future failed miserably.

If they are science they should be able to do predictions about nature. To propose experiments that are proven true. They should be falsable if proven untrue.

And just for the record, I have also read the full Bible. It's also a great piece of literature, but it obviously doesn't depict the reality of nature as a product of the scientific method.

And just to make a point, just because some old guy you got impressed by told you something is true, doesn't make it true. Take this last sentence as you wish.

[-] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 6 days ago

Applied ethics is not ‘what feels like it would be the most correct thing to do?’, it’s writing professional codes of conduct, establishing criteria for who should be allowed to get an organ transplant, who should be considered for parole, what scientific experiments should be allowed to happen, if I listed everything affected by the study of ethics I’d be here all day.

I don’t want a random schmuck who’s never thought about any of this for more than 5 minutes writing any of that, and I sure as shit don’t want people voting on it. That’s how you end up with abortion bans.

[-] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 6 days ago

I'm pretty sure a lot of professional philosophers would agree on abortion bans, while a schmuck like myself agree on "mothers choice"... So...

[-] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 6 days ago

You’re pretty sure based on what? Even self-proclaimed pro-life philosophers admit their position is rare. Ethics itself easily argues in favor of abortion but not against it, which is one reason it’s available in virtually every secular state.

You are starting from your conclusion (philosophy isn’t worth funding) and working backwards to make that fit any new evidence presented to you.

[-] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 6 days ago

Not really. I'm just presenting arguments I have always had about philosophy not being a science.

Even if rare, not a single philosopher could make an experiment or present me a scientific theory that would prove that abortion is right or wrong. So the opinion of a single philosopher is as good as any other, and as good as mine for this matter.

Most modern philosophers are left wing, so yes, most philosophers would agree that left-wing morals are right, and that would present an opportunity for left-wing people to say that global morality should be decided by philosophers. I'm left wing myself but I'm against tricks and lies, even if they "benefit the cause". And even if considering philosophers the moral light of our society would benefit me (as I mainly agree on most modern philosophers views) I personally consider it to be a false statement.

The not funding thing is on the air, yet. I'm just convinced is not a science, is more like literature and other forms of personal expression. And for me the argument would be founding all equally or none. And of course I don't agree on giving any philosopher a position of authority on morals "just" for being a philosopher in the same way I would give a scientist an authority position in science just for being a scientist (once again, because the whole thing of science is that it's subjected to experiments and falsifiability.

I don't even want to diss philosophers. I enjoy reading philosophy a lot. But just as I enjoy reading any other kind of literature. I have respect for Liu Cixin (for instance) but I wouldn't give him an special position in telling people what to do just because he writes good books that make you think.

[-] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 6 days ago

And now you’ve moved your goalposts; first it was ‘convince me philosophy deserves government funding,’ now it’s ’philosophy isn’t a hard science and can’t show me on a graph why abortion is wrong’.

If you just don’t like the humanities receiving government funds, just say so instead of doing this song and dance about how it’s really about science and equality.

[-] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

I literally wrote "I have a hard time understanding why we should fund philosophy studies with government money.".

If you do a bias interpretation on that in your search for an enemy is on you.

I don't write here trying to achieve any goal. I'm not a partisan not a propagandists.

My only goal, as suggested from the original comment was to know other people's opinion a debate a little on that.

And I'm not even American, so I don't really have much stakes on that the US government does or stop doing with their fundings.

As I have already said, it's not that I don't like humanities being funded. I don't like them being treated as sciences, when they are not. I would support a humanities funding that would consists in a more democratic and spread funding that would allow to any member of the society to work on their humanities if they want. For instance funding for anyone self publishing a book on any matter (philosophy or fiction), building national archives and forums for this humanities to coexist.

But funding a philosophy department with a few elite philosophers who are getting a lot of money to do some philoshophing is just wrong from my pov. I could be convinced otherwise if a good argument is presented, but as far as it goes it has not been presented such argument.

[-] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

humanity is a contract not a gift

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 22 Mar 2025
1880 points (98.8% liked)

Science Memes

13916 readers
2220 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS