<100 IQ: not believing in science because you don't know how science works

100>129 IQ: i fucking love science™️

>=130 IQ: not believing in science because you understand how it works

— Caw Caw Motherfucker (@tentaclelesbian) December 22, 2019

This is bitingly true. Once you discover some of the ideas (on your own, as I did at first) that Nancy Cartwright discusses in her works, trust in science decreases and suspicion of experts goes way, way up. I still think science is the best tool we have to understand the universe, but one must realize that understanding is only a lens, not a revelation of absolute truth.

I wonder how many of the articles about “rejecting diet culture” and the like are directly written by food company representatives. I’d guess quite a lot. If not, their paid shills.

I too reject diet culture: I eat the right amount until I am strong and my muscles look fucking awesome.

I wish that all of those smug entitled shitlibs could sit and do a 12 hour triage shift with me in any damn ER. The absolute devastation and costs in suffering, health, (and death!) from postponing the unaffordable care people need until it's a crisis is just damn criminal.

— Anne Bonny (@JulsOtter) December 22, 2019

People with gold-plated health care plans (10-20% of the population) would prefer not to sacrifice an iota so that many, many other people don’t die. It’s the real sickness.

Humanity has a 100% chance of extinction. That is simply axiomatic.

So it’s odd that people don’t accept any one thing, or that anything, could possibly bring about that extinction. It’s bizarre wishful thinking that also leads people to disbelieve things like climate change pose any real risk.

24. I don’t like the diluted version of “literally”, but I read something a while back that claimed that “very”, “truly”, “actually” and maybe some other ones all used to mean literally.

Now I can’t find my citation for this though and I wish I could.

— Divia Eden (@diviacaroline) December 19, 2019

Only sort of correct, but misses a huge amount of relevant context, philology and linguistics. “Literally” in its original usage indeed meant that the statement was to be parsed according to the exact definitions of the words that follow “literally.” The others, “very, truly, and actually,” refer not to the meaning of the words themselves that follow, but rather to the actual events or objects to which the words are referring.

So, while “very” originally meant “true” (via Latin “verus”), it did not refer as “literally” does to the meaning of the word themselves but points instead to the object or experiences to which the words that follow “very” refer. Quite a difference! And another large distinction: “very” is now fully transitioned to an intensifier in English, while “truly” and “actually” generally are not and instead still refer more to various perceived truth states rather than intensifying the adjective that follows.

“Very,” then, made the full transition to intensifier, with its archaic meaning of “true” found only in older writing, while “actually” and “truly” still tend to refer more to truth states rather than acting as pure intensifiers — thought that might change in the future, truly and actually.

This is how economists actually think, and why CPI is way below the actual "cost of living."

For kicks, print this out and take it with you next time you go men's shirt shopping. https://t.co/EoOdXo32Oe pic.twitter.com/dM9KTyMF4e

— Rudy Havenstein, Smiling Politely (@RudyHavenstein) January 15, 2019

AKA how to lie “objectively” with math, one of the main things taught in many fields in college to people like Pete Buttigieg.

How long before the food companies, in league with the FA types, make it illegal to not be obese? Ok, I am joking. But not totally, as if the propaganda continues and actual healthy choices become unavailable (eat ultraprocessed seed oil pea garbage, drink cockroach milk), the difference between de facto and de jure illegality becomes muddier.

“social construct” is a social construct.

— Steve Randy Waldman (@interfluidity) December 20, 2019

Statistics and probability is a social construct, and physics is (mostly) a social construct.

Watchmen’s Lube Man Slide Was a Real Practical Stunt.

Oh no fucking way. I was sure that was CGI when I saw it. What a great practical effect, then. I’m in awe of whatever stuntperson managed that craziness.

Wait, why has the US not changed the name of bombs to “Freedom Fireworks” and UAVs to “Democracy Deliverers?”