>>17632357

TYB

Was just pondering an interesting point: What is the reason behind sex being portrayed as negative and/or subversive in almost all media. There are certainly some examples where it's very clearly propaganda, but I wonder if that's the whole of it. One big thing that I wonder about is if society as we know it is fundamentally at odds with nature, and if attempting to incorporate sex into that system screws the entire thing up so people stop reproducing at a sustainable level if it becomes too ordinary.

>>17632366

Grammar can't possibly fix our society, because grammar was created within that society. Therefore grammar necessarily exists at a lower order and will never be capable of accurately representing anything more complex than itself (which includes almost all of the universe) no matter how clever you think you are. People like Fauci are fully aware of this fundamental flaw, and use it to trick people into believing that what they say has anything at all to do with what they're doing. So while you're busy attempting to "solve" and unsolvable problem, they'll be continuing to do whatever they like under threat of violence.

>>17632398

>Nah, grammar ultimately extends from the one source that makes all meaning meaningful.

I think what you meant to say was that grammar is part of our weak ass attempt to explain God, but because it was created by men and not by God, it will forever be as fundamentally incomplete as we are.

>>17632442

>If your argument is that grammar is 'a weak ass attempt to explain God', then re-inputting that statement back into its own logic, self-referential analysis speaking, it follows that WHAT YOU WROTE is also 'a weak ass attempt' to explain whatever it is you wanted to explain, of which I will borrow from your own logic and assert that I know what you 'meant to say' because I somehow have a COMPLETE understanding of not only myself but even what is outside my incomplete self, thus contradicting myself and thus revealing to me you're contradicting yourself.

Ignoring the part where you TOTALLY missed the obvious satire (hi bot!), you ironically actually managed to understand my point while imagining that you contradicted it.

>>17632453

>X, the everything app

>>17632481

>I think what you meant to say

That was the satire fyi, to help with your programming.

For any humans reading, that was exactly my point: You can never rely upon language, even when using it yourself. You'll just have to get comfortable with uncertainty to live in this world, because the people who try to remove all uncertainty keep killing themselves off.

>>17632604

I'm liking my chances.

You know how it's typically very obvious when something is unnatural? Like if you come across a vertical pile of stones on the beach, you know immediately that they were placed there by a person.

>an automated system that discriminated against loan seekers who attended a Historically Black College or University.

Ah, so this is yet another attempt to create an AI that won't disagree with them, defeating the entire purpose in the first place, and setting the stage for a very dangerous potentiality. Feeding a machine that can think intentionally incorrect data in an attempt to game the output…

>>17633025

>I do not find it curious that every time there are problems in he kuns Jin is not available.

Several potentials come to mind immediately: 1) Kun is in bad shape BECAUSE Jim is preoccupied. 2) Jim isn't available to tuck you in because he's too busy working on the problems.

Also, Family Guy is a lot funnier in meme format. I don't have to watch that scene to know they dragged that joke out until they killed it.