last_philosopher
@last_philosopher@lemmy.world
- Comment on Every last one of these questions is terrible 2 days ago:
Yeah but first boyfriend/girlfriend drives me crazy because then I’m going back through my various early relationships trying to figure out who counts as a “girlfriend”. I’d say Sherry was the first but she always said we were never really together. Well now you’re a security question answer so you can’t deny it anymore Sherry.
- Submitted 2 days ago to mildlyinfuriating@lemmy.world | 36 comments
- Comment on [deleted] 2 weeks ago:
I swiped almost everything right
Don’t do this, if this is an input into your app’s algorithm at all it’ll assume you’re ugly and desperate and not show you to anyone. Only swipe on people you’d be at least potentially excited to meet and that could actually work out (e.g. don’t swipe right on someone who’s profile says “I want a man of god” if you’re a hardcore atheist). I shifted to this strategy on hinge and it made a noticeable difference in the number and quality of matches.
Think about it - if you only swipe right on good matches, they’ll see you and be more likely to swipe right on you. And don’t worry about how their level of attractiveness plays into this, because it’ll be weighted for that.
- Comment on [deleted] 2 weeks ago:
As a massive introvert it’s pretty much the only way I meet anybody. I could write a multi-volume treatise on why people hate online dating and how it points to them doing it wrong in some way. But I’ll spare you.
Just have low expectations - a lot of people treat those they meet on the app as relatively disposable compared to someone they met in real life. So if someone ghosts you or just disappears from the app without a word, it’s definitely impolite but not uncommon. Don’t take it personally (even though my friends tend to take it personally when it happens to them).
- Comment on What's the best way to respond to a family member who says the COVID vaccines are being used to depopulate? 3 weeks ago:
A lot of people are saying cut them off, but I have a family member who was into the anti-vax conspiracy theories and kinda still is, but it’s much less of a focus now and is pretty obviously just being carried forward by cognitive dissonance at this point. There will never be total victory, but there can be a reasonable truce.
What I’d suggest is the most counter-intuitive strategy - show genuine interest. Say “Ok, I want to know more, but I need you to be specific. Tell me what your theory is and what the evidence is, I’ll take my time looking at it, and respond in detail.”
Keep in mind, they probably won’t pay attention to whatever your respond with. That’s ok. The response isn’t the point, pinning them down on what they think is. So often these things are purely emotional, and forcing them into a logical framework will make them do the work for you. As for the response, odds are it’s some combination of cherry-picked data and spurious correlations, if not outright made up facts.
- Comment on What's the best way to respond to someone who says "transracial is just as valid as transgender"? 4 weeks ago:
The correct response is to consider what the correct way to synthesize the positions is, and go with that. There’s nothing wrong with thinking a little in response to a question.
Typically, the assumption is that this is an argument that transgender is invalid. Perhaps there’s another way of looking at it.
- Comment on [deleted] 5 weeks ago:
I just want to point out something that I’ve not seen others mention - sometimes girls are just way too paranoid about what their families will think. I know one girl who keeps insisting that her parents wouldn’t let her date a black guy, but then she also admits that she dated a hispanic guy before and thought the same thing but her parents loved him. Honestly I think like 70% of girls imagine that their parents wouldn’t accept some huge swath of men due to some superficial characteristic, but probably in reality only maybe 20% of parents would actually be against their daughter dating a guy who treats her well, even if he’s of a type they dislike.
- Comment on Who did this 😂😂😂 5 weeks ago:
Let’s be real - we always assumed that we could hear our parents walking in but there’s no way they didn’t sneak up and check what we were watching once in a while
- Comment on How strong is fermented bean curd supposed to taste exactly? 5 weeks ago:
Yup I was going to treat it like eating cubes of tofu
- Submitted 5 weeks ago to [deleted] | 12 comments
- Comment on If you are too young you really missed out being able to do this 1 month ago:
See this is when you would slam the phone
- Comment on If you are too young you really missed out being able to do this 1 month ago:
Someone could make an app that detects a slam and hangs up the phone, then also sell a padded slam-receiver to replicate the experience. Or just use a pillow.
- Comment on Avocado 1 month ago:
I’d imagine lemmy has among the lowest has-sucked-dick ratios of any potentially mixed-gender community.
- Comment on Definitions 1 month ago:
A sword by definition has a “pointed blade” accordingly any object with an infinitely long blade cannot be a sword. Rather, it’s a blade ray.
- Comment on What are the ethics behind purchasing a book from an author you don't agree with? 1 month ago:
In most cases, it’s wrong to violate the social contract, especially while benefiting from it. However: the harm done by violating the social contract should be weighed against the harm of not violating it.
In this case, the harm of violating the social contract is pretty minimal, as copyright law is not a fundamental part of the fabric of society. One can even argue it’s kind of dubious, as something that moneyed interests favor very heavily with no similar moneyed interests favoring a strong public domain.
The harm of not violating it is not only do you give money to a holocaust denier, you’re giving it to him for denying the holocaust. Even worse, you’re giving him money for being wrong, and so effective at deception that you are compelled to spend money disproving him.
The whole point of copyright is to encourage useful works and spreading of knowledge and art. In this case the work is not spreading knowledge, but un-knowledge. Irving is exploiting a loophole in copyright law that allows him to work against its very purpose.
Thus I’d say violating the law is ethical as the benefits far outweigh the costs.
- Comment on [deleted] 1 month ago:
Consciousness
