Dr. Quadragon ❌

@Fudoshin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kowUpdwOVHI

@CyberTailor @deadsuperhero @th3rdsergeevich Oh…

The link

https://xxivproduction.video/c/regex/videos

@CyberTailor @deadsuperhero Yep. That’s where we basically (the RuFedi) gather regularly every two weeks to express ourselves via the mic and video. We tell stories, discuss news, show our work, and announce projects.

The point of the show, it MUST be done as a live stream (no post-production unless absolutely necessary), regularly, with AT LEAST TWO people (no matter who) leading the show. The episode MUST happen, come Hell or high water.

The stake? The show itself.

If there’s only one person, or everybody skips the episode entirely, then the episode didn’t happen, and the show is over.

We’ve been doing this for 2,5 years already, thanks to @th3rdsergeevich and other folks. It’s been great.

@June Happy to help.

@Violett_Queen I don’t think it’s already the case and we already generally do just do whatever we want, but are afraid to admit it to ourselves.

Also, are you talking about *gamy or *amory?

There’s distinction.

Polygamy is about just sex pretty much. Polyamory is about romantic relationships.

If the former, then, a lot of married people have sex outside marriage. It’s debatable how honest this is, most of it just cheating - but that already counts as polygamy.

If the latter… Unfortunately, we’re ways off universally recognizing this type of relationship. For shame.

There’s also the factor of polyamorous relationships being harder to maintain, requiring a lot more work to do properly. Despite what conservatives might say, this type of relationship demands MORE responsibility from all involved, not less. So, it’s not everyone’s cup of tea, and probably monoamory will be the default in most of the cases. But if you are willing and able pull it off, there’s nothing quite like it.

@June I’m sorry? but isn’t:

polyandry = multiple male partners
polygyny = multiple female partners
polygamy = multiple whatever partners?

Just so that we’re on the same page?

(source: quick google search to verify that I’m not crazy)

@neshura

@Crabhands Exactly. And that’s most of them.

@wildcardology argues that “all the definitions are in the dictionary”.

True. But then it comes down to “who writes the dictionary”, so it’s just kicking the can down the road.

@pinkdrunkenelephants

> Humans are hardwired to

Tsk-tsk-tsk…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture

@Crabhands

@pinkdrunkenelephants Solipsism? What?

Do you even understand what I’m trying to say?

@pinkdrunkenelephants Okay, whatever, looks like you don’t want to think about it, which is also fine, it’s kinda tough question.

@pinkdrunkenelephants Look, I commend and admire the power of thought-terminating cliches, they are useful (and this is part of my point as well), but still, I’d like an honest an answer:

Where Do You Think The Root Of All Authority Is?

I have my answer (or at least what I think describes the answer the best), but I’d like to hear from you.

@pinkdrunkenelephants Soo… Ultimately, it’s *you*, right? Or is there another answer?

@pinkdrunkenelephants No, no…

The dictionary is the source of authority for YOU.

What’s the source of authority for the dictionary? Where’s the root of all authority? Whom will you trust with this job?

@pinkdrunkenelephants
> authoritative

Fine. What is the source of this authority?

@pinkdrunkenelephants Yes, but it’s important to remember that dictionaries are not god’s gospel. It’s not some kind of revelation about Life, Universe and Everything. And it’s not even a naturally occurring phenomenon. It’s still just a book (or rather, a database) some dudes or lasses wrote some time ago using their accumulated experience. It still comes from humans. It’s still just a fragment of someone’s consciousness.

And being, as we (hopefully) know, determines the consciousness. And being is an immensely complex and ever-changing thing. So no dictionary is accurate, ever. So we have lots of them, and all context-dependent.

So it is useful to re-evaluate the definitions you think you know.

Take the same makeup, for example. If someone wants to ban it, they’d better fucking give everyone a clear idea what do they mean by that. Suppose, I’m going to a football (or soccer, depending on who you ask) game and paint my face in the colours of FC I’m a fan of. Am I a criminal now?

@pinkdrunkenelephants Also, you’ve only proven my point that “the definition game” has no concievable end. So…

@pinkdrunkenelephants Let’s do it the way I proposed in my message here: https://mastodon.ml/@drq/111177928748371050

and take the practical approach to this.

Whom would me defining every word you throw at me benefit? Who will be better off?

Me? No. You? Well, it will satisfy your facetiousness, and short term, yes, maybe. But in long term, you’ve learned nothing and never wanted to. Us together? Nah, you’re clearly going to turn this into a competitive situation. Society? Nobody cares.

So, I will have to decline.

@pinkdrunkenelephants Hmm… How to put it simply.

The entirety of connections between different entities surrounding an entity in question. I’d put it this way.

@pinkdrunkenelephants Somewhat common context and somewhat overlapping experience (both personal and third-party). The overlap is never 100% though. Ask three people, what something is, you’ll get four answers. No matter who they are.

@pinkdrunkenelephants Y’see…

A lot of things we don’t do because we can do them, but because we can’t not do them.

Given time and population, you’ll build some kind of country, whether you want it or not.

As for “meaning of words we can look up in a dictionary”… My dear, you haven’t worked with language long enough to see what I’ve seen. And let me tell you, dictionaries have more contradictions than any text you can dig up. And that’s completely normal. Because this is also what we can’t not do, because there’s a giant hole at the bottom of all definitions, because the world is an incomprehensible mess, and always will be.

Shit, we can even barely answer basic questions like “what the fuck the colour orange is?”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WX0xWJpr0FY

What we can do, is define words from context to context and hope to navigate those contradictions.

What matters in the end is, if we’re at all better of for the way we navigate, or worse. It’s the only thing that matters, really.