this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2025
747 points (97.9% liked)
Memes
11422 readers
817 users here now
Post memes here.
A meme is an idea, behavior, or style that spreads by means of imitation from person to person within a culture and often carries symbolic meaning representing a particular phenomenon or theme.
An Internet meme or meme, is a cultural item that is spread via the Internet, often through social media platforms. The name is by the concept of memes proposed by Richard Dawkins in 1972. Internet memes can take various forms, such as images, videos, GIFs, and various other viral sensations.
- Wait at least 2 months before reposting
- No explicitly political content (about political figures, political events, elections and so on), !politicalmemes@lemmy.ca can be better place for that
- Use NSFW marking accordingly
Laittakaa meemejä tänne.
- Odota ainakin 2 kuukautta ennen meemin postaamista uudelleen
- Ei selkeän poliittista sisältöä (poliitikoista, poliittisista tapahtumista, vaaleista jne) parempi paikka esim. !politicalmemes@lemmy.ca
- Merkitse K18-sisältö tarpeen mukaan
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
How did you get that from what I said?
Here lemme flip the script on you. If you can't listen to someone and absorb information without immediately conjuring negative assumptions about them, you might not be fun to be with either.
The point was that facts are facts. The fact that calamari is not caviar is not malleable (unless you're in Estonia I suppose lol). It's just a cold hard fact that outside of Estonia they're two completely different things. In this situation there is no spectrum of rightness. You're just either right or you're wrong.
I'm not saying that its worth dying on the calamari hill in public. Handle that debate however you see fit.
Someone's words are not more truthful than another person's. The only reason you see the calamari thing as fact is because you have the bigger picture.
Your lack of empathy, ergo, putting yourself in the shoes of someone with a certain conviction, is a red flag.
If you can't realise that the dude's opinion is worth the same as the girl's within their conversation, then you lack critical thinking skills.
If he says A and she says B, only an outside observer can determine whether he or she is right.
I'm sorry but if you can't grasp this simple concept there's no point taking to you anymore, and you come across as extremely arrogant.
It seems like you don't know the definition of the word truth or you've been taught an inaccurate version of it. They way you write makes me think that you read a lot online and I've noticed in the last five or so years that there seems to be a push by some people (typically with ulterior motives from what I've seen) to dilute the definition of truth to accomodate the propagation of their worldview.
The truth of the conversation is that the guy was wrong. Calamari is not caviar = True.
This idea of adapting the word "true" to conveniently dodge outright wrongness on a topic is a problem. You're using the wrong word if you're saying things like "my truth" or "your truth". It would be more accurate to say "my/your understanding".
As I mentioned before, the truth is something that exists outside of you. You refer to facts to describe the truth to the best of your ability. No one expects anyone to have a complete understanding about everything. Incomplete knowledge is just fine so long as you accept when others fill in the gaps or correct you.
Its OK to be wrong. If people accept their own fallibility, they grow with every conversation they have.
Looking through your interactions regarding this seems like there has been some stuff mistaken as sarcasm when it wasn't, they were agreeing with you but the context was lost and so you took offense. It happens. No biggie.
But the rest of this seems like you're trying really hard to be philosophical and... Well .. it's not working.
No outside observer is required to prove you wrong when you're arguing facts. And within their conversation...? They were arguing about proven facts. These aren't opinions they were arguing (eg political or religious beliefs).
My opinion? A simple Google search to confirm his own knowledge (or lack thereof) would have solved this. He gave himself no room to be wrong. He clearly needs to be humbled and recognize that he might just be wrong about something. That is the red flag he needs to work on.
Your red flag? Your inability to recognize what is ACTUALLY being discussed here and showing your own arrogance about it all disguised as being philosophically and morally superior. There's no empathy required here until he has the ability to humble himself.
Try to go back through these comments but with a different mindset and a different tone of voice for your internal narrator and you might pick up what we've all been putting down for you.
Good luck.