My ideology is somewhere between @MattWelch (*not* @MattWalshBlog) and @charlescwcooke with a helping of anti-Jones Act animation a la @scottlincicome. Pinning this so no one that follows me is confused. I don’t like Trump or identity politics or FP “realists”. I do like the USA.
If a corporation could save on labor by hiring women *they’d already be doing it*. Is the point of that argument. One of the only places children are allowed to work free of those laws are in small family owned farms which Cross lionizes and in Hollywood as actors ironically lol
When having only access to Prime of the streaming services for a while you end up on a series like “Cross”, which has the most trite political views I’ve ever heard of, but it is informative. There is an economist in season 2 who is said to have made an argument in the WSJ …
About how if firms could make more money hiring women because their labor is “cheaper” they should hire only women. It’s a real argument. The show took that to mean: so they’re saying they should hire children and that’s the whole plot of season 2 lmao
It’s opposite argument!
And then leave the story in the middle of the second act, to restart it with minor differences in a different format lol. Maybe the “act” thing was a western conceit all along and stories are just a river
I’m growing to love anime. What I find so hilarious is they’ll spend like one episode covering the heroes wandering through 8 different towns that all have call backs and then like 3 episodes covering a single philosophical argument in the midst of a battle lmao
@Alicoh1@DerekPederson3 Speed of causation. If it could be exceeded then all the paradoxes exist. There needs to be a hard limit if we live in a universe that makes sense.
@jk_rowling@SwipeWright@DuncanHenry78@tlitb I am not going to lie, continuously picking verbal fights with one of the most popular authors who has ever lived always seemed like a thing I wouldn’t personally choose to do but to each their own lol.
@d1111111111113 He is smart but he also knows he’s smart and can convince himself of things with circular reasoning and then just read his press clippings to avoid having to confront any inconsistency
Ironically categorizing such things as “deepities” is itself a “deepity”. Banalities are useful in certain contexts. Not everyone has the IQ of Daniel Dennett and therefore capable of peering behind the blanket of trite wisdom. But it’s comforting to some to hear it nonetheless
Daniel Dennett on "deepities" the profound-sounding claims that are secretly empty
Philosopher Daniel Dennett has a name for a type of statement that sounds wise but actually says nothing: a deepity.
He explains it this way:
"A deepity is an apparently profound observation that is ambiguous. It has two readings. On one reading it's obviously false, but if it were true it would be very important. And on the other it's trivially true."
The trick is in the ambiguity. When you hear a deepity, part of your brain registers the trivially true reading and thinks yes, that's correct. But another part is reaching for the dramatic, important-sounding reading and that's where the illusion of profundity comes from.
Dennett's favourite example, which he uses when teaching the concept to students:
"Love is just a word."
It sounds deep. Think about it for a moment and it feels like it's gesturing at something real. That love is intangible, constructed, perhaps even illusory.
But Dennett dismantles it immediately:
"Whatever love is, it isn't a word. You can't find love in the dictionary."
That's the "use-mention error" confusing the word love with the thing love refers to. Once you put quotation marks around it properly, the statement collapses into something utterly banal: "love" is just a word. Well, yes. So is "cheeseburger." So is "word."
The deepity survives only because we don't slow down enough to ask which reading we're actually accepting.
Once you have the word "deepity," you start seeing them everywhere: in self-help, in politics, in philosophy.