Dr. Quadragon ❌

@UltraGiGaGigantic It’s the only way to fight, though.

@TheImpressiveX

@bstix You don’t have to be rich to be an asshole, but you almost certainly have to be an asshole to get rich.

@UltraGiGaGigantic

@jatone Every video and every model will be overly simplistic when applied to any reality. Every abstraction is a leaky abstraction.

@rocci I want this as a poll format option in the Fediverse.

@rocci CGP Grey already did.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLej2SlXPEd37YwwEY7mm0WyZ8cfB1TxXa

@Pacattack57

@Quintus It can get annoying. It certainly is distracting.

@NahMarcas

@rimu I don’t think it’s without reason though.

Don’t forget that fascism is what capitalism degenerates into.

So, follow the money, seek the ones who profit. Fascists themselves are irrelevant, they are basically useful idiots. Look out for those who feed those idiots.

@CrimeDad

@June Happy to help.

@Violett_Queen I don’t think it’s already the case and we already generally do just do whatever we want, but are afraid to admit it to ourselves.

Also, are you talking about *gamy or *amory?

There’s distinction.

Polygamy is about just sex pretty much. Polyamory is about romantic relationships.

If the former, then, a lot of married people have sex outside marriage. It’s debatable how honest this is, most of it just cheating - but that already counts as polygamy.

If the latter… Unfortunately, we’re ways off universally recognizing this type of relationship. For shame.

There’s also the factor of polyamorous relationships being harder to maintain, requiring a lot more work to do properly. Despite what conservatives might say, this type of relationship demands MORE responsibility from all involved, not less. So, it’s not everyone’s cup of tea, and probably monoamory will be the default in most of the cases. But if you are willing and able pull it off, there’s nothing quite like it.

@June I’m sorry? but isn’t:

polyandry = multiple male partners
polygyny = multiple female partners
polygamy = multiple whatever partners?

Just so that we’re on the same page?

(source: quick google search to verify that I’m not crazy)

@neshura

@Crabhands Exactly. And that’s most of them.

@wildcardology argues that “all the definitions are in the dictionary”.

True. But then it comes down to “who writes the dictionary”, so it’s just kicking the can down the road.

@pinkdrunkenelephants

> Humans are hardwired to

Tsk-tsk-tsk…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture

@Crabhands

@pinkdrunkenelephants Solipsism? What?

Do you even understand what I’m trying to say?

@pinkdrunkenelephants Okay, whatever, looks like you don’t want to think about it, which is also fine, it’s kinda tough question.

@pinkdrunkenelephants Look, I commend and admire the power of thought-terminating cliches, they are useful (and this is part of my point as well), but still, I’d like an honest an answer:

Where Do You Think The Root Of All Authority Is?

I have my answer (or at least what I think describes the answer the best), but I’d like to hear from you.

@pinkdrunkenelephants Soo… Ultimately, it’s *you*, right? Or is there another answer?

@pinkdrunkenelephants No, no…

The dictionary is the source of authority for YOU.

What’s the source of authority for the dictionary? Where’s the root of all authority? Whom will you trust with this job?

@pinkdrunkenelephants
> authoritative

Fine. What is the source of this authority?

@pinkdrunkenelephants Yes, but it’s important to remember that dictionaries are not god’s gospel. It’s not some kind of revelation about Life, Universe and Everything. And it’s not even a naturally occurring phenomenon. It’s still just a book (or rather, a database) some dudes or lasses wrote some time ago using their accumulated experience. It still comes from humans. It’s still just a fragment of someone’s consciousness.

And being, as we (hopefully) know, determines the consciousness. And being is an immensely complex and ever-changing thing. So no dictionary is accurate, ever. So we have lots of them, and all context-dependent.

So it is useful to re-evaluate the definitions you think you know.

Take the same makeup, for example. If someone wants to ban it, they’d better fucking give everyone a clear idea what do they mean by that. Suppose, I’m going to a football (or soccer, depending on who you ask) game and paint my face in the colours of FC I’m a fan of. Am I a criminal now?

@pinkdrunkenelephants Also, you’ve only proven my point that “the definition game” has no concievable end. So…