Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)SP
Posts
8
Comments
141
Joined
1 yr. ago

  • Some opinions cannot be explained. For example "chocolate is better than vanilla".

    There are a lot of those. It's the earth upon which all argumentation stands.

    So at some point the question arises, "do I respect the individual?"

    But for us, on the internet, the individual doesn't really exist?

  • But language cannot convey perspective. It can only refer to it. Language only works when perspective is shared.

    If perspective is not shared then, tho we use the same words, the meaning we assign to them differs. We may appear to be communicating but we really aren't quite, there's something broken there, and that brokenness generally gets translated as "this guy is just stupid".

    This is a problem with language and the internet.

  • It isn't a worldview devoid of reason. It's perfectly good reason based upon a set of assumptions that differ from yours.

    Reason is the house. The assumptions is the ground upon which the house is built.

    Some ground is rock, some swamp, some flat, sloped... all require different house designs. Dig?

  • What if they simply see things differently?

    Chocolate is better than vanilla. Argument? Of course not.

    Argument requires shared assumptions. If the assumptions are not shared then you can't argue.

    And then what's left? Respect for the individual?

  • A billion years ago we figured out acquisition. Grab all the stuff.

    A million years ago we figured out language.

    Now we use language for acquisition. If we do that efficiently enough we can convert language to acquisition 100%. Which deletes all value from the language for us. But what a great business!