Bonus points if it’s usually misused/misunderstood by the people who say it
I live in the US and follow rugby.
“Rugby is a hooligan’s sport played by gentlemen, soccer is a gentleman’s sport played by hooligans.”
So cringe. Different sports are different. I can like both, I can even play both, and neither suffers a loss.
It’s from heading the ball (at least in soccer) A lot of repeated head impacts can result in CTE.
It’s a stereotype, maybe even a generalization. It’s not “very true”. It can’t be; there’s about 130,000 men in the world who play soccer professionally or semi-professionally.
Just because certain cultures incentivize hooligan behavior (looking at you, London), doesn’t mean all everywhere do.
yes but this is too big to big ignored. It is still a problem people still die around the world because of football. that is not the case for rugby.
Until this situation changes this saying is very true.
“It was the best of times, it was the blurst of times” -stupid monkeys
“We only use ten percent of our brains.”
People genuinely believe this and never learned where it came from.
I mean, sure, it makes a fun movie. But when people take it seriously, it stops being fun.
I liked the part where he said “It’s limitless time” and totally limited those other guys
I once read a documentary of what happens when someone uses 100%. It’s called My Hero Academia.
It came from early on in studying the brain. A scientist said that we only understand what 10 percent of the brain does, and everyone ran with a misunderstanding of that idea.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson explains here. https://youtube.com/shorts/E4EjYfUBEvw?si=LO3GIURgZesHjo85
That and the “Alpha Male” garbage. Even the author of the study on wolves has said repeatedly that his study was totally wrong. And yet some people continue to reference it and apply it to humans when even the original study wasn’t about people.
I think that one is finally starting to die off, aside from the last gasps of a man in prison. It takes a while for real science to filter through to common knowledge, and I’m constantly seeing the corrections about wolves and alpha status as flawed thinking.
A “well regulated militia” had a different meaning back then. Also, there’s a comma in the middle of the amendment that means the first phrase is only a clarification. The second clause stands on its own.
I just attended a lecture about this specific comma today. It was there as a rhetorical pause, not to separate clauses. A great example of how ambiguity in punctuation can cause thousands of deaths.
Yup. I’ll go with the linguists on this one.
Textualism and originalism
A group of linguistics scholars describe developments in the field of corpus linguistics, which did not exist when District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago were decided, that have allowed for a new understanding of the language used in the Second Amendment. Researchers in American and English history have digitally compiled thousands of Founding-era texts, making it possible, for the first time, to search and examine specific terms and usage from the period. The resulting evidence demonstrates that “keep and bear arms” had a “collective, militaristic meaning” in the late 18th century. The scholars write that, consistent with that meaning, Founding-era voters would have understood the right to be subject to regulation.
Alright, we can discuss the first clause. Here is another comment I made in the thread on that topic: https://sh.itjust.works/comment/4356959
The people that spout the second part are only slightly more annoying than the people that spout the first part. Both sides are idiots who think they have a “gotcha!”. Rhetorical geniuses.
The second amendment exists. The courts have upheld it to mean the right of individual ownership. There is zero wiggle room here. If anyone wants to debate how it is vs. how it should be, I welcome that conversation! But be warned, we’ll be arguing opinions, not these two facts.
The next comment is where some kid, fresh out of Remedial PolySci, tells us all that amendments can be changed. Who knew? Of course they can’t explain the method by which that happens or propose a path forward in the foreseeable future. (Hint: The point is entirely moot.)
Yeah the genie is already waaaay out of the bottle in the US. It would be logistically impossible to get rid of guns, nice as that would be. This is something both extremes refuse to accept, because they wouldn’t have a cause or solution to rally around. No, Bubba, nobody’s going to take your guns. No Stewart, we can’t just ban guns and wash our hands of it. Other countries have indeed mostly eradicated firearms in normal society, but nowhere near on the scale that the US has.
Ok, I’m not saying you need to agree with the principle, but the grammar clearly states that the citizens get guns because the government has a military (which is the well-regulated militia).
Again, not starting a debate on if that’s good or bad, just grammar.
No, the “well-regulated militia” actually referred to a desire to have all able-bodied men of military age to commonly have most of the skills needed to fight in a war in case of a draft, such as marksmanship and survival skills, as well as already owning most of the necessary equipment.
What’s important to note is that the US had a very small standing military for most of its history. It relied on being able to conscript a large number of recruits whenever a war started, and sent them home whenever the war was over. This requires a lot of the citizenry to already know most of the skills they’d need to raise an army quickly.
“Agree to disagree.” No, dipshit, you’re just wrong.
I do not agree to disagree, because we’re not arguing about opinions. Your belief is simply, objectively incorrect. Or mine is, which is something that I would be willing to accept. If I were wrong, you’d be able to convince me that I’m wrong. We can keep going until one of us accepts that we didn’t have an accurate understanding of reality.
It’s always the dipshits that fall back on “Well, we will have to agree to disagree,” usually right after they’ve been presented with enough evidence to change the mind of a rational person. Fuck that, I do not agree to disagree.
You don’t get tired of arguments? I see it as a ‘fine, be stupid if you want’ because I’m not spending more time on the point.
Agreeing to disagree is just more polite and often nicer for both, if such agreement is reached. You’re basically saying that we can’t really convince each other of our position so let’s just leave it at that instead of trying endlessly.
Agree to disagree is for things like “what ice cream flavor is best”, not for things like “2+2=4”.
I have found that the issue is often that people tend to not realize they’re arguing that 2+2=6, they think they’re arguing what ice cream flavor is the best
This is exactly the sort of argument that I was thinking of when I wrote the comment. We can agree to disagree on the best ice cream flavor, because everyone has different tastes. We cannot agree to disagree on whether the earth is flat, because it’s not and we have overwhelming proof that it isn’t.
If I were wrong, you’d be able to convince me that I’m wrong. We can keep going until one of us accepts that we didn’t have an accurate understanding of reality.
I had an ex like you.
No, dipshit, you’re just wrong.
Your belief is simply, objectively incorrect.
If I were wrong, you’d be able to convince me that I’m wrong. We can keep going until one of us accepts that we didn’t have an accurate understanding of reality.
Boy if this doesn’t describe most people arguing online lol.
which is something that I would be willing to accept.
I’ve found this is much harder than it seems. People either don’t understand they’re wrong (which might be the reason they’re wrong to begin with) or unwilling to admit to being wrong even to themselves. So you’ll have the first part of my quote lol
