TʜᴇʀᴀᴘʏGⒶʀʏ⁽ᵗʰᵉʸ‘ᵗʰᵉᵐ⁾ @ TherapyGary @lemmy.blahaj.zone

*Being a bodyless head with a freak long tongue is not only okay—it can be

---

Read more

Posts

67

Comments

888

Joined

11 mo. ago

It would be the nail in the coffin for me to block .world, and I imagine more instances would end up defederating

Everyone east of the EST time zone isn't gonna get the joke

Decided to go with my most recent PerplexityAI inquiry lol

Could have linked this

Would the life cycle/span of strongyloides allow for specimens to be expelled through the nose approximately 30 days apart, or does that suggest an infestation by a different autoinfective helminth?

Ummmm I don't think that's the right take away from this story, though you're certainly entitled to a different opinion

I just happened to be browsing all, sorted by 'new comments'. This sounds fun- can you link it?

had depression once but I sent it away shortly.

I don't think that was depression lol

Oh, I see

I appreciate your question about Boffa's work. Engaging with different perspectives is crucial for any meaningful discussion.

To clarify, I’m always open to exploring various theories and research, including those that challenge mainstream views. If you could share more about Boffa's contributions or specific ideas, I’d love to hear your thoughts on how they relate to our conversation about the shape of the Earth.

Understanding different viewpoints can help us both refine our beliefs and foster a more productive dialogue. What aspects of Boffa’s work do you find most compelling in relation to the flat Earth perspective?

Looking forward to your insights!

Edit: After some digging, I found this, "Understanding the Lived Experience of Late-Entry English Learners," authored by Joseph W. Boffa II.

I assume you're suggesting I don't know English very well. That's awful rude

I appreciate your willingness to engage in this conversation, but I must say that your comment misses the mark in terms of constructive dialogue.

While humor can sometimes lighten a conversation, it can also derail meaningful discussions. Your comment feels dismissive and undermines the serious nature of the topics we’re discussing.

Every belief system, including the flat Earth perspective, deserves to be treated with respect. Mockery doesn’t foster understanding; it creates division. I’m genuinely interested in hearing your thoughts on why you believe the Earth is round, and I hope you can appreciate that my beliefs are rooted in a desire to seek truth, just as yours are.

Let’s focus on having a respectful discussion where we can share our perspectives. I’m open to exploring the evidence and reasoning behind both viewpoints without resorting to jokes or insults. What do you think?

I have to say, your comment is pretty offensive. As a "flat earther", I take these beliefs seriously, and it’s frustrating to see them reduced to a joke.

First off, the idea that nobody has ever tried to reach the center of the Earth isn’t just a punchline. It’s part of a bigger conversation about what we think lies beneath us. The whole pressure thing feels like another excuse from the “roundies” to dismiss our views without real evidence. We question everything because we’re trying to find the truth.

For many of us, Hell is a significant part of our belief system. We believe in spiritual realities that a lot of people overlook. The idea that if someone dug too deep, they’d fall into hell is serious for us; it reflects our beliefs about morality and consequences. Mocking this belief shows a lack of understanding and respect for what we hold dear.

Also, I have no idea what you meant by “(just in case: /s)” at the end of your comment, but it sounds like it could be something offensive. If you’re going to make jokes at our expense, at least be clear about what you mean.

Instead of making jokes, how about we have a real discussion? Every belief system deserves some respect, even if you don’t agree with it. I’d be interested in hearing your perspective on why you think the Earth is round, and I’m happy to share more about why we think differently.

Just because the US does it doesn't mean other countries aren't also doing it. OP said bots or foreign bad actors. Sure, a narrow scope that utilizes propaganda language, but your comment is some false dichotomy whataboutism tankie shit

For sources on foreign influence in U.S. social media, consider:

• A study detailing Russian influence operations on Twitter and their effects during the 2016 election.
• Research highlighting ongoing influence campaigns by various countries, including Russia and China.
• Reports analyzing foreign influence tactics.

I get what you mean, but people might read this and think Perplexity is an ethical company.

https://opendatascience.com/perplexity-ai-ceo-offers-to-step-in-amidst-nyt-tech-workers-strike/

This?

I've only read a handful of Their articles, but all the ones I've read seem solid. Can I ask what your problem is with Them?

What an impressive way to phrase that. I haven't heard such intentional language since my social work program lol

People who take their time to respond thoughfully like you do, make online spaces much easier to navigate.

You've demonstrated this better yourself than I did imo, so thanks for that!

Thanks for responding! I hope you have the patience to help me understand a bit more. :)

Of course! Thanks for asking and being open ☺

E.g. in academia (at least in my country) we tend to talk about authors of a particular paper as "they" whether they are one, several, male, female etc, even if you know their gender. It is consided respectful, unassuming and inclusive.

Yeah I think this is totally normal and okay, but if the particular paper in question, e.g., is about gender, and the author writes about their unique gender, I think it would be inappropriate/disrespectful to not use their preferred pronouns°

Do you think it is disrespectful to e.g. say "I love my partner, they bought me legos for christmas" when talking about my spouse to a colleague even I know she's female? Where my motivation is to not have gender in the conversation?

It definitely depends on the person and the culture. Some people, cis or not, feel a strong internal sense of their gender, and may feel misrepresented when referred to with neutral pronouns. (Further reading °if I were writing a paper and referenced this author, I would be sure to use Their preferred pronouns, because Their pronouns are known and relevant (They/Them, Capitalized))

I'm quite queer and have facial hair, so when I refer to my partner with neutral pronouns, people assume she's a man, and then she has an uncomfortable first interaction with those people when they meet her, and wonders if I'm embarrassed to be in a relationship with a woman.

Personally, if I hear someone specific being referred to with they/them pronouns when their preferred pronouns ought to be known, I assume they're non-binary, trans, or at least some sort of queer

Ultimately, 'they/them' pronouns aren't entirely neutral. Those pronouns imply personhood, can strip away identity from some, and are an identity for others