Well my point is just it’s neither fully determined as in ahistoric rule nor random as in “changes all the time” or “everyone has their own singular definitions and concepts”. And in between there is the sweet spot of understanding, interpretation and development…
Objective and socially constructed isn’t a ‘hard’ contradiction.
Yes of course language evolves and so on, but in a given time(period) it needs to be interpretable more or less independently from the specific actor (a dictionary ensures this, even though it needs to be updated regularly).
In other words yeah sometimes language comes up with new stuff. If it would do it all the time, it wouldn’t function
This is a week analogy… french only works as a means of communication because it has internal rules that are objective (as in different people understand the same/very similar thing when hearing/seeing a symbol/word).
Singularity of experience is cool, but anything social requires communication/synchronization.
Even though gender is used as a box or definition people are forced to fit into (and this is bad), reducing human experience to a blackbox kind of singularity is a highly individualist take.
You can work on understanding each other without forcing anyone to fit into your definition…
You should also not let war dehumanize you. That’s part of the fight against war
And yes putin bad
Means.tv has a weekly good news thing. Check it out!
Dewindowed
Imagine the letter H and G would look similar. Now imagine there was a language that didn’t have the letter H. People who spoke that language would post: “Hot Dog” and then go like “aaaahahaha imagine God Dog, like a god thats a dog”.
Now add the fact that germans know and use the word burger regularly and do posess knowledge of the existence of different languages and that “burger” is an english word, thus pronunciation differs.
So I’d say no, not funny.
Then again I have laughed about and made jokes that made use of the similarity of burger and Bürger. But I guess the “rofl different languages”-element needs to be combined with smth more to qualify as a joke.
Yours, german giving german answers
Totally. I think it also shows that empathy is to some degree a subject to choice, which in turn is connected to one’s scope of action
Reminds me of one time I discussed egg ethics and the number system in europe with my fellow german student flatmate.
Our other flatmate was a syrien refugie and when he came in and we translated the subject he laughed - a whole lot. When he was able to speak after that epic laughter he just said “in syria its people in cages and you fight about chicken.”
Reality had been checked
Accepting it is a choice with practical consequences. We should work on understanding what is to change and how and focus on doing it.
Making prophecies about what “Eventually” happens is self handicapping, wich does not help :)
We don’t exist as a whole, wich is the political challenge I would like people to focus on.
I think in post religious thinking it’s not about “deserve”
Edit (cant properly edit on jerboa rn) … your base argument is right.
Of course your base argument - capitalist economy is ecolocically destructive and dysfunctional regarding the needs of the many.
“Until there is noone left to fulfill their orders” thats the kind of “justice” i’m talking about. Like, Homoestasis will put them down in the end. Justice will be served. But that’s deceptive satisfaction.
Don’t go down the “natural balance” kind of revenge fantasy. It only makes one comfy in passivist boundedness. Also the guy in the picture is far more likely do do just fine in a climate catastrophy than you. Gaia nature god lady won’t bring you any justice, at all.
Fatalism is in that mix, too. A very easy way to meet political complexity
Whats going on ITT?
You fluffin find out where that insecurity comes from and help them build themselves up.
Constructive and empathic (self)critique is how transformation works
This is not how you strenghthen solidarity. In case anyone ever gave you warmth when you were struggling to be a nice person: ponder that situation :)
I totally agree. Still one point that is or can be made is that even though every element of culture and art is a result of a chain of remixes, some people who help forging it get rich and famous while others don’t get shit.
Like, since creating is a collective processes, it’s economy should be, too.
Subjective in this sense would mean everyone has their own singular way as opposed to “its the same/similar indepently of the person looking at it”.