You incorrectly assume that Trump’s sycophants are any better at reading comprehension than he is.

“Ah, yes, the official numbers are…”

<checks notes>

“Yes, ‘the bigliest numbers. More than ever. Yuge. So much.’… As you can see, we had a record turnout”

That’s impossible. I distinctly recall a news article from my childhood which reported that the moon’s spoon was stolen by a dish after a cow distracted it. Did the moon get its spoon back somehow?

When I read this, I thought you were being naive with the first half, thinking that any employer would give a shit, but then you gave me new hope by citing the grim rationale of the corpocrat. Thank you for this breath of fresh, cynical air. A much-needed, realist break from the glitter-bomb hope porn I expected

The babadook. It’s a fairly poignant metaphor for grief and the ways it affects us.

Thank you for the edit! That edit was very helpful for me to read.

The “cause” appeared to be appealing to the idea that piracy from sports companies hurts the poor players, who are just there to get paid, because whatever would the world do if Josh Allen made a few dollars less off of his $55 million per year deal?

However, given your clarification, I take less issue with your premise. I maintain that it was a bad comparison to actors, and that the companies within the oligopoly over sports broadcasting are all, universally and without equivocation, awful, the players are insultingly overpaid, the entire system needs to be dismantled, and that any action taken to undercut them is an axiomatic good.

1. That’s a completely false equivalency, since the entire point of movie production is NOT a competition. Sports, however, is literally all about competition through feats of athletics and strategy.

2. The discussion about the egregious insultingly high salaries both of the highest-paid actors and sportballers is one that we can have, but I do not think that one will go well for your cause.

3. I’m gonna need some sources cited that the main reason the majority of people watch sports is for “the drama”.

I am confused. You are not the OP?

* OHH THE OG OOP.

<bows>

Perhaps. The issue I perceive is that, for corporations, evil deeds are only illegal if you get caught and the government actually pursues you. Then, the most the corpos face is a fine, and remember: if the penalty for doing something illegal is a flat fine, then it isn’t a punishment, it’s a price.

Thus, this corporation has indicated its clear intent to sell me to the highest bidder. I would not give them a chance to do so. A “do not agree” button is just that: a “do not agree button”.

AH, I see. So, it already existed, but until trees evolved, it wasn’t used to such an extreme extent.

No, they are saying that it would be strange for them to be native here, like how apples are not native here.

They are saying that they would be interested to see the archeological evidence that backs up the oral tradition, because oral tradition is a great way to start your research, but is insufficient as evidence for a scientific claim. Just like how (since we’re talking about European arrivals in the americas) I can say that there’s oral tradition that St. Brendan landed in america in the 6th century. However, since there’s fuck all to support it, that’s not a very convincing claim, but it sure would be interesting if someone discovered archeological evidence for it. The Icelanders claimed to have landed in america for hundreds of years with oral tradition, and few believed them because there was fuck all to support the claim. Then, all of a sudden, they find remnants of viking settlements in Canada, and now its very interesting.

You specifically cited DNA evidence. Then, when someone asked about it, you immediately accused them of European exceptionalism in a ridiculous strawman. So, either your claim can be very interesting, since it’s backed by archeological evidence, or I can treat it with the same amount of credibility as St. Brendan over there in his leather raft.

If only Canada would take us…

I mean, how technical do you want to get? Because gravity isn’t a real force, assuming Einstein is to be believed.

To be fair, Newton was suggesting the feasibility of using chemical propellants to create stable ballistic orbits in space as far back as the 1600s with his cannonball example.

An honest and sincere question deserves an honest and sincere answer:

Gatekeeping: Simply suggesting that others need to read more, or that they need to “look into” one of the largest and most controversial philosophical topics in history is a haughty and disdainful way of saying “I’m right, I’m not going to cite my sources, and anyone who disagrees with me must carry the burden of proof”. Don’t leave the justification for your argument as an “exercise for the reader” involving the entire canon of published thought, since that insinuates that they are simply too uneducated to understand how correct you are. THAT is gatekeeping knowledge.

I didn’t say maths was from Europe: Not directly, but you supported your argument for the statement

“[The scientific] method is predicated on European Enlightenment avowals of what constitutes an acceptable boundary of truth… [etc.]”

with nothing but the statements

“2+2 does equal 4. That doesn’t mean valuing 4 as an answer or valuing the act of valuing of the certainty of 2+2=4 is an objective position.”

as exemplary evidence. You are, quite literally, stating that the “valuing” of 4 as an answer to 2+2 is a question of science (otherwise it’s a non-sequitur), and that this is an example of how the scientific method privileges European Enlightenment ideals over others. That is saying that the precepts of mathematics are based on European enlightenment ideals, Q.E.D.

“Where’s the disdain”: I believe that a reasonable person would read this argument and conclude that the disdain is implied, given that you clearly seem to be complaining that the European enlightenment ideals have somehow “privileged” certain perspectives. Now, I happen to agree with that statement, but clearly in a very different way than you do:

It seems to me that, until the likes of Karl Popper’s contribution of the principle of falsifiability as the chief hallmark of scientific practice, the entrenched belief in strict empiricism was being privileged as a leftover of European Enlightenment traditionalism. Perhaps another will come along soon who similarly unseats Popper. To claim, however, that the scientific method itself is somehow predicated on enlightenment ideals appears, to me, to miss the entire point of this original post: that science changes, just as much as how we do science, because science is all about constantly holding ourselves, and our ideas, to ever-higher standards. Most of the principles of the modern scientific method have been around for more than a thousand years, slowly building on one another. The idea of a strict “scientific method” is as much an illusion as the entirety of reality may be, but that’s just because we are always developing new ways of knowing.

*Edited for readability and clarity.

Um, actually, the scientific method as it is currently formulated is best traced back to Ibn Al-Haytham, with elements dating back throughout thousands of years, from the rationalism of Thales to the experimentalism of 墨子. Babylonians were using mathematical prediction algorithms to accurately state the date of the next solar eclipse in 600 BCE. It seems like YOU need to read up on the history of the philosophy of science, and if you claim that 2+2=4 is an “enlightenment” idea, I cannot hope to respond with a level of disdain sufficient to encapsulate your willfully-pompous idiocy.

You say that 2+2 DOES equal 4, and then make claims which suggest that it doesn’t. Certainly, 2+2 can only be said to equal 4 because of the axioms of mathematics, which are, of course, purely postulates, since Cartesian solipsism demonstrates that we cannot truly know anything to be true except that we ourselves exist (oh, but wait, your disdain for enlightenment philosophy clearly removes this, the best refuge for your argument!)

However, to accept as a matter of course that 2+2=4 and then suggest that it is only through subjective perception that we privilege 4 over any other number in that equality is not only a clear argument in bad faith, meant only to make others feel stupid, but is also patently ridiculous, since you are reneging on your own given precept.

So, if you’re planning on gatekeeping knowledge,

1. Do better than “2+2=4, but also 2+2=5 because eurocentrism bad”
2. Fuck. Right. Off.

They already did. Consider “The Bell Curve”. Hugely popular among conservatives, but rather than concluding “hey, maybe the tests are inherently normative of question styles of a single culture, and structural racism leads to opportunity inequity in education”, no, they concluded “black and brown dumb, Asian and white smart”

You are, incorrectly, assuming that they are going to administer the tests in a traditional fashion (a fashion which is, already, deeply racist).

I was under the impression that structural lignin was what really made trees a viable style of growth, and that seems like an odd chemical for a bunch of unrelated plants to all evolve. Is there something I’m missing? Is lignin actually present in all vascular plants?