cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/2997684
cunk
this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2024
438 points (97.0% liked)
Nominative Determinism
450 readers
1 users here now
Nominative determinism is the hypothesis that people tend to gravitate towards areas of work that fit their names. The term was first used in the magazine New Scientist in 1994, after the magazine's humorous "Feedback" column noted several studies carried out by researchers with remarkably fitting surnames. These included a book on polar explorations by Daniel Snowman and an article on urology by researchers named Splatt and Weedon. These and other examples led to light-hearted speculation that some sort of psychological effect was at work.
This is a community for posting real-world examples of names that by coincidence are funny in context. A link to the article or site is preferable, as well as a screenshot of the funny name if it's not in the headline. Try not to repost, and keep it fun!
founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It was deadly toxic populism according to the unsubstantiated tales that did not take hold in any significant way for over two centuries. It was like a Trump rally, Klan meeting, witch burning, or being born Palestinian in Gaza; death by mindless mob violence, hate, and prejudice.
Much as its nice to draw comparisons to modern politics. Im given to understand that modern scholarship doesn't agree. The romans killed jesus for breaking roman law (claiming to be/being perceived as the ruler of a roman province). Blame was later shifted to jews because Christianity was being preached to a Roman audience who wouldn't want to see themselves as the bad guys.
We have no Roman legal record of anyone that matches the story of Jesus. Based on the account in the bible, Pontius asked the crowd if they wished to free Barabbas or Jesus. I do not consider the bible a valid source. The original texts are not available and there are no reliable corroborating sources. The book has no ontological knowledge of the universe at a fundamental level, and all information contained within can be explained by human observations and meddling. Pandering to speculation and correlation is to empower cons. I consider anyone that must be interpreted due to ambiguous language as a con artist.
Im genuinely sorry but i don't really understand what you're saying here... Could you maybe rephrase this for me?