856
Dad jokes
(lemmy.zip)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2024
856 points (98.1% liked)
Comic Strips
11950 readers
2001 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Not really, no.
The comic strip format could be characterized as a memetic style of communication that has spread by imitation from person to person.
Such is not true of ferns, for example.
The idea of ferns, as a decorative plant, is most definitely a meme.
However you are right that ferns, as a lifeform, fall under the category of genes.
Actually, ferns are a social construct.
You MAY be thinking of femmes ๐
Those are a social construct too, because everything is.
I think you might be confusing "social construct" for "things that there's a word for" ๐
No, reality is socially constructed, sociologists have been saying that for ages and it's true. http://soulism.net
Oh. You're one of the "reality is not real" kooks ๐
We're just far enough left to see that "hierarchies aren't self justifying" extends to reality too. We don't accept realist defeatism. Realism is an infant ideology of avoiding responsibility for reality, and saying "it's not my fault, it's reality".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Social_Construction_of_Reality
You're mixing a lot of unrelated concepts here.
Just because authoritarians pretend that the status quo is inevitable and immutable doesn't mean that reality itself is a human invention made to justify it and other assumptions.
Likewise, conflating defeatism disguised as realism with the concept of reality itself is not just a giant leap of logic. It's a giant leap AWAY from anything resembling logical thought.
Reality isn't fake because it's defeatist, it just happens to be both fake and defeatist. It's fake because it was invented by rich white men in the 1600s to justify colonialism. And it's defeatist because most people today acknowledge those rich assholes were wrong about how the world should be, but not about how it is.
Damn. That take is just as batshit insane as the right wing's worst conspiracy theories! Not anywhere near as malevolent and harmful, of course, but just as divorced from any sense.
Acknowledging the current state of affairs as existing is not only not defeatism, it's absolutely CRUCIAL in order to effect any positive change.
Saying "it is" doesn't equal saying that it has to be. You can't effect positive change if you don't first acknowledge what the things that need to change are rather than pretend that it's all a shared hallucination.
Sure I can effect positive change while believing the bad stuff exists only in our heads. Our heads are where we live! Of course I want people to have better illusions in their heads. For example, if Trump wins then a bunch of queer Americans will experience a subjective sensation of being oppressed. That's horrible, so I'm asking Americans to vote for Biden.
Nope. That's literally impossible.
Nothing subjective about it. Pretending otherwise is minimizing their real suffering and tantamount to victim blaming.
So is telling victims of oppression that they're only imagining it. Thus implying that they can just choose to stop being oppressed.
This is where your nonsense theory goes from childishly frivolous thought experiment to being actively harmful to the people whose best interests you claim to have in mind.
Okay, so the difference between what I believe, and what you're saying I believe, is that I believe there are rules to how the mind works. You're saying if the mind were responsible for everything, then we would all have total control over our subjective worlds because a brain never did anything a consciousness didn't want. But I actually understand what psychology is, and that the conscious mind has its limits. Soulism is about gaining the tools to overcome those limits through hard work, not about instantly changing everything with wishes. Now, are you willing to accept the premise that the mind has limits, or are you going to continue along this assertion that soulism recognises no barriers to overcoming oppression?
Sick meme