9bananas
@9bananas@feddit.org
- Comment on Opinions on the internet 4 weeks ago:
the “paradox” as the user above pointed out, simply isn’t a paradox at all:
“A” = “not A” is never a true statement in any sort of logical framework.
and that’s all that the “paradox” really says: a society cannot be tolerant AND intolerant at the same time. it has to pick one.
it boils down to “you can’t have it both ways”, and that is the intended meaning.
i believe a grave mistake was made by popper when he popularized the concept as a “paradox” rather than a simple logical, and by no means new, conclusion.
in his attempt to frame it in a technical/philosophical context for his peers, he inadvertently made it seem like some kind of nebulous, unknowable dilemma to the general population.
there is not, and has never been, a dilemma here. it’s simply a logical conclusion.
it’s kind of like the whole misunderstanding of “theory” vs “hypothesis” leading to the now-common “evolution is just a theory” among religious fundamentalists.
“it’s just a theory” is wrong, because a theory in a scientific context is proven true, there’s nothing hypothetical about it.
in a similar vein, the “paradox” is a only a paradox in the sense that it seems counter-intuitive at first glance that a tolerant society cannot tolerate intolerance, but the conclusion is crystal clear.
and that last part seems lost on people, because when the average person hears the word “paradox” they assume that there is no conclusion or definitive answer to something, when in this case, there is a definite conclusion.
and that assumption of “paradox = dilemma” is why people constantly misunderstand the paradox of tolerance. the assumption is wrong.
popper called the conclusion “paradoxical”, which isn’t the same as something being an actual paradox.
i really wish they’d used a different name for the concept, because the name is a terrible case of misnomer…
- Comment on The Expanse: Osiris Reborn Announcement Trailer 4 weeks ago:
in other contexts, your husband could very well have a point…but not when it’s about the expanse.
when the entire point is realism, these little things, even when they seem pedantic, become jarring.
after all; it’s a series by space nerds, for space nerds! ;)
- Comment on Scientists have been studying remote work for four years and have reached a very clear conclusion: "Working from home makes us happier." 1 month ago:
it wasn’t a dunk, really…i merely pointed out the irony of condemning “absolutist statement”…in the form of an absolute statement, which i think is pretty funny!
you said “cannot be true”, which, you know, is an absolute! ;)
- Comment on Scientists have been studying remote work for four years and have reached a very clear conclusion: "Working from home makes us happier." 1 month ago:
Your statement is very absolutist therefore it cannot be true.
criticizes “absolutist” statement…with an absolute!
bold strategy, lmao!
- Comment on Palworld confirms ‘disappointing’ game changes forced by Pokémon lawsuit 2 months ago:
in most countries, afaik, you actually can’t patent game mechanics, for the same reason you can’t patent rule sets for boardgames:
because they are essentially just logical connections. it would be like patenting math, which is also not allowed, for very obvious reasons. (with some very specific, very niche exceptions)
japan is just plain weird and wrong about their patent system.
that’s why all of the lawsuits about this stuff are happening in japan; not just because that’s where the companies are, but because japanese copyright law is (especially) fucked.