2
What was the strangest take you've seen/heard someone say? (lemmy.world)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/asklemmy@lemmy.world
20 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 20 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 1 point 3 years ago

When I was in high school, I heard someone say "I don't know why poverty exists when we can just 3d print money". What the 3d has to do with this, I do not know

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 1 point 3 years ago*

    Here's a strange one I don't necessarily disagree with (but I'm not sure I agree either:)

    "Jazz is an American form of classical music"

    According to someone that was in a music history textbook (don't remember the country but it was in Europe.)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    I've seen so many dog shit/brain dead takes on Reddit about various topics that I don't think I can even remember any of them specifically.

    So instead, I'm choosing this take on climate change by Ben Shapiro.

    It doesn't matter what side of this argument you fall on. Who is buying a house in an area that is slowly being flooded?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Did you honestly not understand what he means?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    I don't think anyone understands what he means, least of all himself.

    Also he needs to Google "straw man".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    How is that meme not a straw man?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Because his explanation is bullocks. The whole argument is.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    What exactly is bullocks about it?

    The sea level doesn't just rise one day. It's a slow process that'll happen over decades. Many of the people living in those houses now probably want to sell in the near future while they still can. They might not get back what they paid but in 5 years you're not going to get even that so better cut your losses. At some point the coastline gets so close that those houses will just be abandoned, demolished and people will have moved further inland.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    It’s focused on some ideal coastline that fits the argument well.

    In reality you will see storms that set underwater whole metropoles repeatedly, think like New Orleans a few years back, but on a yearly base.

    And when it comes to the really big metropoles in Asia, they don’t have much options to properly relocate millions of people at ones.

    The likes of Shapiro won’t welcome them in the USA, even if they promise to stay in the rural centers.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    I'm having some trouble understanding what exactly is the confusion here. If the sea level rises it's not like people will just keep living underwater. They have to move somewhere else. Entire cities and towns has to be relocated elsewhere. Besides building massive sea walls there's just no other option. This in no way implies it's not going to absolutely suck for the people living there. Ofcourse it does.

    What exactly is it that Ben is wrong about here? This is really confusing to me

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    He’s pretending that this will just go smoothly with the help of the free market.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Are we watching the same video? At what point is he implying that?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago* (1 child)

    His trope and that of the people he finances is climate change denial and libertarianism. It doesn’t need to be in that video, but that’s the context he philosophizes in.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 3 years ago

    I haven't heard him ever denying climate change. At best he has just been questioning its severity of it. Even in this talk in question he says: "I'm not saying that it's not happening. It may be happening. I'm happy to say that it may be happening. I may even be happy to say that it's probably happening"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    In my circles I'm the one with the strage takes. For example I don't believe in free will. I believe we're probably living in a simulation and if we ever create AGI it's most likely going to end us. Also we're probably the only intelligent life in the universe.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    The free will one and the fear of an AI uprising is understandable, even if I disagree myself, but the other two... What makes you believe that in the entire universe, we're the only planet that managed intelligent life? And the simulation thing is just crazy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

    We may not be the only intelligent life in the entire universe but the only ones in our corner of it and that's why there is no signs of alien civilizations anywhere to be seen. I've also heard people much smarter than me give mathematical explanations as to why the evolution of intelligent life is way more unpropable than most people think.

    Why I believe in simulation theory is just statistics; eventually we will develop technology that is able to run such simulations and we're going to create thousands of them. From that point on when new consciouss being is born it's unlikely it appears in our world instead of the thousands of simulations we're running. I just think this applies to us aswell. For us to be living in the base reality we'd either have to be extremely lucky or be the first ones to create such simulations.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    In my eyes, if it's extremely unlikely that we're real, it's even more unlikely that another species is not only real, but has significantly better technological advancements than us as well. It's just the same problem with extra steps. But the thing about the simulation thing, is that it's completely unfalsifiable and has no impact on our reality even if it's true. So there isn't really any need to consider it outside of a philosophical conversation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •