this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2024
1082 points (94.1% liked)

Political Memes

5489 readers
2839 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] OhNoMoreLemmy@lemmy.ml 25 points 3 months ago (2 children)

You might want to look at Wittgenstein.

In his early work he went hard on this approach, and insisted that "hey philosophy is dumb", just agree on the definitions and then chase through the implications.

In his later work he realised that this is impossible. Words have contextual meaning that is revealed by their usage and you can't nail down full and complete definitions in advance.

What you're talking about absolutely can and will never work. We have tried it and seen it fail.

[–] iiGxC 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

The general point is that the "what is a woman" question is still word games rather than an honest attempt at finding truth and understanding

[–] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Yes exactly. "What is a chair?" These semantic boundaries may seem annoying and pedantic to explore at first, but can be pretty interesting once examined especially at a neurolinguistic level.