this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2025
510 points (98.7% liked)

Lemmy Shitpost

27950 readers
3906 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.

Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means:

-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...

If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Memes

2.Lemmy Review

3.Mildly Infuriating

4.Lemmy Be Wholesome

5.No Stupid Questions

6.You Should Know

7.Comedy Heaven

8.Credible Defense

9.Ten Forward

10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)


Reach out to

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 53 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (6 children)

There's actually a whole class of these words. They're called heterological words.

Their opposite, autological (or homological) words are words that do describe themselves. "Autological" is an autological word because it describes itself.

Here's a fun question, though: is "heterological" a heterological word? If you say yes, then that means it does not describe itself and therefore it is not heterological. If you say no, then it does describe itself therefore it is heterological. Bit of a head scratcher.

This is the Grelling-Nelson paradox.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

My favorite homological word:

Sesquipedalian.

An unnecessarily long word, or a person who uses unnecessarily long words.

Sesquipedalian is a sesquipedalian word.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

Oooh, that's a good one! Its use also makes its user described by itself. Neat!

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Why is autological an autological word?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Because it refers to itself, it's like the trivial case

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

How does it refer to itself?

It would need to already have been referring to itself to refer to itself

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

I think you're right, it made sense earlier but not anymore

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

I think you're right. There's a bit of an infinite regress problem, isn't there?

[–] pyre 6 points 1 day ago

the new administration has banned the use of homological words so be careful.

[–] Quicky 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I used to be really interested in paradoxes, but I decided in my old age that they’re all just bloody annoying and pointless. 99% of paradoxes are just linguistics. All these philosophers who spent their lives debating them are infuriating bastards. “Oh you’ve come up with another unsolvable word puzzle have you? Well that’s language for you - an abstraction developed by the fallible. Congratulations mate, great use of everyone’s time.”

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

OK, Grandpa, back to bed. j/k j/k :)

We have multiple industries (movie/tv/gaming/sports) whose main focus is "wasting" time. Finding some enjoyment in linguistics and logic certainly isn't any more of a waste.

[–] Quicky 2 points 19 hours ago

Haha I'm just being dismissive, but greater minds than mine have made the same point.  

I read something a while back about Ludwig Wittgenstein (in a YouTube comment of all places). He basically said "It turns out that Philosophy, my entire life's work, is just a language game and, in the end just like a game, it can be fun and challenging, but ultimately meaningless." Everyone disagreed then immediately went back to playing their own games, trying to prove him wrong by proving him right.

[–] jaybone 3 points 1 day ago

You’re the substitute teacher who wouldn’t let us play Heads Up Seven Up.

[–] ewigkaiwelo 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Isn't there a mistake in your first statement about the word heterological? If I say yes the word heterological is heterological it means that it doesn't fall into the class of words that it describes and so it is heterological, because as you've defined heterological words do not describe themselves

Here's a fun question, though: is "heterological" a heterological word? If you say yes, then that means it does not describe itself and therefore it is not heterological.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

You're correct! I had an extra not in there. Good catch.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

That's how you know it's a real head scratcher

[–] ewigkaiwelo 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I was actually referring to the other "not" that was at the end, but it only shows why it is paradoxical and how confusing nature of predication is in languages, as in this question appears to be a case of Russell's paradox of sets

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

Just a good reason not to dabble in paradoxes before you've had some coffee. lol