Posting thoughts on social media in the form of words is an action.
this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2024
126 points (96.3% liked)
Showerthoughts
29728 readers
352 users here now
A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. A showerthought should offer a unique perspective on an ordinary part of life.
Rules
- All posts must be showerthoughts
- The entire showerthought must be in the title
- Avoid politics
- NEW RULE as of 5 Nov 2024, trying it out
- Political posts often end up being circle jerks (not offering unique perspective) or enflaming (too much work for mods).
- Try c/politicaldiscussion, volunteer as a mod here, or start your own community.
- Posts must be original/unique
- Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct-----
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Although I'm curious to know if it's a full or multiple round action. With traditional D&D having 6 seconds to a round, it might be two rounds, maaaaaybe three.
But talking out loud with words isn't action? I broadly agree with you, but by that logic it deconstructs the statement entirely.
If typing words is action, then so it's speaking, so the rules are made up and the points don't matter.
Except actions and words both matter so I think the saying is garbo.
Showing up to a protest is also an action. So is smashing someone's car. Do you think you can feed the hungry purely by posting thoughts on social media?
None of those actions feeds the hungry
Translation: "I have no way of arguing with this obvious and simply stated fact, so I'll pretend they're 14 and think it's deep and then attack them for that. I'm 28 and this is a worthwhile use of my time."
I'm not 28
Oh but I bet that other person is 14 then. That's obviously the substance of my critique, you win.
Your behaviour is quite excrubulent right now. I don't appreciate that
Glad to hear it!
Funniest shit I read today
If you have actions and words, then you should judge them based on actions because that is what they did and not what they said. The actions are more important than the words. If they promote peace and love, but spend their evenings violently attacking children, then their actions speak louder than words.
If all you have is words, then you work with what you have. At that point you are responding more to the message they are expressing, not necessarily to them as an individual.
And the reason things are so bleak is because most people only have words to go off of, rather than actions.
For sure, and with even a teensy bit of reflection I think most people would agree that people are generally quite shit at expressing themselves with words. We say things we don’t mean or imply things we didn’t intend to all the time. A well written book or article takes hundreds of hours of re-writing and getting feedback and re-writing again just to try to communicate the author’s idea effectively. Snap judgments based on social media posts alone are pretty baseless.
Words are one type of action - like if someone refuses to say something, that's a choice right there. e.g., I'll say it: "Nazis murdering people is bad", but there are some who won't say those words... and that's really saying something (managing to convey a message of a whole other sort).
Words are cheaper than most other types of actions though. Yet also they can amass in bulk, and there are ways to follow through e.g. if someone says they fixed something in a piece of code, and provide a GitHub link, you can verify that the words match the deeds.
Edit: also I find it hilariously ironic to see these early downvotes, essentially judging these words without even offering an explanation, so perhaps we should say that while actions are more weighty than words, votes (up and down) are the cheapest of all 😂.
Define 'bad'.
And 'Nazis' too for that matter, I don't know if you mean literally members of Hitler's National 'Socialist' party, or something else.
I would generally concur that killing (murder is sometimes defined as 'unjustified' killing, which is screaming for a definition of what is 'justified' killing) does more harm than good, ie is subjectively immoral according to my own sense of morality, which was shaped through my genes that were shaped by evolution, the society I live and grew up in and the experiences I've had.
But killing in self defense might be moral. If someone was a member of the Nazi party because they lived in 1930s Deutschland and didn't feel like they had any other option if they wanted their family to be safe, but didn't actively participate in it or help oppress minorities, and found themselves stopped on the way home by a person with a gun one night, who threatened to kill them, would it be that immoral for them to shoot their attacker in self defense?
Of course, you may disagree with me on various aspects, that's why it's important to clarify your terms, and not make blanket and loaded statements such as 'Nazis murdering people is bad'.
Edit: for the sake of clarity, everything after the first line is an edit.
From your question, I can infer that you - even if only for the sake of argument - are taking the position that it is subjective? In which case, feel free to do so - but don't be surprised if not everyone picks the same definition.
There is definitely room for nuance, but I tried to pick an example that was fairly clear & unambiguous according to most people's understanding of that term.
I was asking what you meant by it. How did you define the terms bad, Nazi, and murder?
Yes I think morality is subjective, but as I explained in my last comment, my subjective morality would mostly agree with your statement in the way I interpreted it, with some nuance. But I only know how I should interpret your statement if you define your terms more clearly.
I assure you that could look up the definitions of those words, if you were so inclined. Also, your comment was somehow a lot shorter when I replied, compared to now (e.g. why would I claim to have inferred that your position was subjective, if you came right out and said it, which at least now it looks as if you did?). I can't keep up with you if you are going to edit the past like that.
For the sake of future conversations, you might consider (1) waiting to reply until you have written out all that you want to say, (2) keeping your edits to a minimum, for clarity's sake, and (3) if you must edit - which we all do, all the time - then at least clearly denote which things are edits, so as to distinguish them from the original text. Edit: this is not an actual edit, but this would be one way that I could use to denote that I am adding a sentence to an existing paragraph, rather than leave people to see that something is different but then have to guess what it might be.
Otherwise... pure chaos ensues. e.g. I could say "you are a poopy-face", you then you reply "no I am not, but you are", and then I edit my first to say "wow, you are so smart!"... (haha, checkmate!) do you see how this leads to disingenuous exchanges, rather than logical, rational, reasoned discourse, among people trying to talk in good faith?
Anyway, yes Nazis were (and are still) bad, imho, but feel free to do you I guess - so long as you aren't forcing me to do the same. But let's end it here, b/c you have so far not managed to explain how any of this at all relates to the OP, and I am already too put off by this style. Hopefully we can enjoy better exchanges in the future:-).
I apologise, my intent was not to mislead anyone, I simply edited my comment quickly after listing it to add more detail, and I thought that you has read the updated version when you replied. I have since clarified the original comment.
As for
I assure you that could look up the definitions of those words, if you were so inclined.
I already know several definitions, as I have said in comments that you definitely have read, but that wouldn't tell me what you meant by them.
I mean, how can you do your interpretation of a fictional movie?