We found 49 Reddit comments about On Bullshit. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Not to mention, BS != lying, according to at least one prominent academic.
It could very well be that BS is worse.
I believe what you are describing is technically called bullshit. https://www.amazon.com/Bullshit-Harry-G-Frankfurt/dp/0691122946
There's a little book called On Bullshit by a moral philosopher who contemplated the prevalence of bullshit in the modern world. It was one of my favorite little reads of the last few decades.
I'd imagine Frankfurt would have a field day with reddit.
For clarification, this smacks of bullshit in the technical sense of the term, which is probably why it is being down-voted. But you framed this as a logical response; so, my rejoinder will be in kind:
The fact that your relationship with your wife did not work out despite having allegedly started as an infatuation illustrates that infatuation with someone is an insufficient condition for achieving a state of happy commitment. The collective testimony of human experience has also shown that infatuation is not a necessary condition for this desired state of affairs; there are all sorts of people who have wound up in happily committed relationships without having first passed through a stage of infatuation. But if infatuation is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for achieving a happily committed relationship, then it is logically of no consequence whatsoever for that project.
Still with me?
The various respondents are arguing that your articulated feelings towards your coworker bear a family resemblance to infatuation. If they are correct, then your feelings towards your coworker ironically need to be bracketed--as in, literally set aside from your processing of your options--in order for you to make the decision about your future soundly. On the other hand, in order to demonstrate that these respondents are incorrect in this assessment, you will need to show why your feelings towards your coworker go well beyond infatuation to something far more substantial.
It will be extremely difficult for you to establish the aforementioned demonstration given the ways you have already described the points of attraction between you and your coworker, e.g. bonding over memes seems juvenile to the majority of us who are responding, the high level of excitement and nervousness you posses with respect to communicating with your coworker suggests emotional infidelity / unwise boundary crossing, etc. Absent this demonstration, you have no good reason to pursue a relationship with your coworker on the basis you articulated in your comment here--and this is without even considering the ramifications with respect to your wife and child.
This part of your initial submission is interesting:
> I eventually agreed to try to work it out with her and to try to fix our problems, not wanting to lose everything. Her conservative father talked to me in private, and shockingly told me that he understood exactly how I felt because he had the same situation and that I should go with my heart and that I need to make a decision (as opposed to murdering me for hurting his daughter so badly). Tonight, my wife left again and said that I need to decide between my coworker and her and to tell her my decision. And here I am now.
Your wife is right. Follow through with all those small decisions of commitment culminating in your marriage right up to the one you articulated at the top of this paragraph: Try to work it out with your wife, and try to fix your collective problems. It may suck, but it will suck nowhere near as much as the alternative with which you're toying--an alternative that is not just a poor idea based on people's opinions but one that is logically indefensible given all of the above.
You probably know that the etymology of the term "husband" refers to a man who is a "house dweller." The connotation of the term comes out more fully in its verbal form, where "husbandry" refers to the management of one's household.
Build, lead, and defend your house to the death. The support you're receiving from wife, your father-in-law, the substantial majority of respondents, and (according to your story) even your coworker to that end should be more than encouraging--it should make you want to kick some freaking ass for your family. Perhaps the way things have played out so far for you mitigate against that. Perhaps being "behind" your wife's pace in college and financially beholden to your in-laws makes you feel emasculated, among other things. The way to deal with this is to manage your freaking house, not burn it down.
Holler if you want more input; meanwhile, all the best...
I've figured it out... I think Uber very intentionally makes statements that, while misleading, cannot be shown to be outright lies. Let's break this one down.
Very cool. What definition of 'bullshit' are you using? I use Frankfurt's whenever it comes up.
Apparently 'On Bullshit' is real, lol.
As for the episode, yes, it was very lackluster, but those games do look like garbage, even for the time, there were much better options, as the Nerd pointed out.
Overall impressions: AVGN has clearly run its course, and needs to be retired. But all of us here know that.
> How can all of you instantly turn on anyone who isn't doing exactly what you think is right?
Because if its wrong, its wrong.
That DOJ memo is wrong.
I don't tolerate putting up with bullshit for the sake of compromise, and Mueller trotting out that DOJ memo was bullshit.
"We have compromised on this less smelly bullshit" is not a good compromise, its still just bullshit.
Tell her it's from the other Frankfurt School.
Baia baia... el periódico Excelsior era el último lugar en el que esperaba leer una referencia al filósofo Harry G. Frankfurt y a su ensayo sobre el bullshit.
Para los interesados, Frankfurt escribió un ensayo corto (vendido en Amazon México como un mini-libro de 60 páginas con pasta dura de la buena) llamado On Bullshit en el que se hace la distinción filosófica entre el significado del término bullshit y su diferencia con la mentira promedio. Si les interesa profundizar en la distinción que menciona Leo Zuckermann, recomiendo el libro (cuesta menos de 100 pesos, se lee de un solo golpe en una hora y media máximo, y hasta ayuda a inflar tu número de libros leídos al año):
Ninja Edit: Estoy descubriendo que también está disponible en español en paquete con otro escrito acerca de la verdad, pero sale mas caro:
I think I mostly agree with you. There are plenty of things I find maddening about this topic that are all variations on oversimplification:
On Bullshit by Harry Frankfurt.
> Wow, your attitude is pretty toxic.
Naah, I just don't have a whole lot of patience for bullshit.
>"A good design is one that performs a function efficiently and effectively. If someone claims that something is a bad design, and yet (i) it works well, efficiently and effectively, and (ii) that person can not demonstrate a better design that still performs all of the original functions, then we can dismiss the claim that that object is badly designed"
Stupid question: Why are you so all-fired determined to shoehorn you gotta be able to work up a better design into your criteria for determining whether or not a given Design is bad? Seems to me that if we can recognize the function (or functions) of a given Design, we can justifiably infer something about the quality of that Design just from observations of how well or poorly it performs that function (those functions), without being able to Design something better. Likewise, from observations of the operational characteristics of the Design, plus known qualities of the materials and suchlike from which the Design was manufactured; for instance, if we know the standard operating temperature of a given Design, and we observe that the Design includes parts whose melting point is at or below that standard operating temperature; I think we can justifiably infer something about the quality of that Design, regardless of our ability, or lack thereof, to improve on that Design. And so on, and so forth.
> By the way, when you're talking about not knowing how a calculator is designed, weren't you the person who argued that you can't tell if something is designed or not unless you know how it was manufactured?
No. I argued that if you want to make a scientifically valid inference that some arbitrary whatever-it-is is Designed, you need to work up a testable hypothesis of Manufacture, and you need to, you know, test that hypothesis. Not the same thing at all.
I also acknowledged, in an earlier comment, that In the mundane business of day-to-day life, "it looks Designed to me" is good enough. Because in most cases, something that looks Designed is Designed. But in the mundane business of day-to-day life, it sure looks like the Sun moves across the sky, doesn't it? When, in fact, real science tells us that what's really happening is that the Sun is pretty much staying where it is, and the Earth's rotation is what makes it look like the Sun is what's doing the moving. So there's an obvious chasm between What It Looks Like and What's Actually True.
By the way, I don't demand that every inference one makes in day-to-day life must necessarily be scientifically valid. But you ID-pushers? You ID-pushers absolutely do make noise about how your alleged Design inferences are scientifically valid. So, I'ma gonna be a real hardass about the blatant lack of scientific validity in the Design inferences made by ID-pushers.
>Does this mean that you can't tell if a calculator is designed or not?
I, in common with the vast majority of all human beings, have a store of just a whoooole friggin' lot of background information about Designed thingies whose Designers are human beings. Designed thingies whose Designers are anything other than human beings… not so much. Given that background information, which includes a number of relevant facts, not least the relevant fact that calculators are Designed by human beings, I think I am rationally justified in concluding, at least on a tentative basis, that any random calculator I see is, in fact, Designed. If there were some particular calculator that I wanted to be more certain of its Designed nature than I can infer from my store of background information about human Designs, I would form a hypothesis of how that particular calculator was Manufactured, and I'd test that hypothesis of Manufacture.
Now, that background information about human-produced Designs… is not necessarily relevant to Designs produced by Designers who are not human beings. And I'ma go out on a limb here to declare that if Life On Earth was Designed, that Designer was not, in fact, a human being. Ergo, any intuitions about human-produced Design should not be considered reliably applicable to Life On Earth.
In his book "On Bullshit" ( http://www.amazon.com/Bullshit-Harry-G-Frankfurt/dp/0691122946/ ) Harry Frankfurt makes the important distinction between liars and bullshitters.
A liar is interested in deception, and therefore is concerned about the quality of his lie.
A bullshitter will say anything, as long as it sounds like a response.
I’ll assume you weren’t being condescending.
You seem to think bullshitting isn’t as bad and I’m somehow a Trump apologist. On the contrary, I’d rather a person care to know truth and lie to me, than a person not care about truth at all.
If you care to, there is an awesome book called “On Bullshit” that helped me understand how Trump acts. And to my surprise it was written in 2005. Takes 45 minutes to read, fun read.
On Bullshit https://www.amazon.com/dp/0691122946/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_uEwYAbK4JT48S
Not affiliated in any way. Buy it wherever you want :)
A little discussion of Frankfurt's [bullshit] (http://www.amazon.com/Bullshit-Harry-G-Frankfurt/dp/0691122946/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;sr=&amp;qid=) might be appropriate here.
It's not lying, its just... bullishit.
I would call this more philosophy than psychology.
The book list just keeps growing in so many different directions that it's hard to identify which I want to tackle next (I also have a tendency to take meticulous notes while I read and that slows the process down even further!). Some of the topics I intend to read about once I'm done with the books mentioned:
Actually, according to this book: http://www.amazon.com/Bullshit-Harry-G-Frankfurt/dp/0691122946/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1300299667&amp;sr=8-1 , bullshit refers to things a person says that make him/her look better regardless of the truth of said statements. So bullshit may or may not be erroneous; the truth of bullshit is irrelevant. And, the intent is not malicious per se, but it could be if being malicious helped portray the speaker in a positive light, which is the only purpose of bullshit.
I would recommend 'On Bullshit' by Harry Frankfurt. Great book, philosophically based, and dealing with human communications.
Reminds me of [this book.] (https://www.amazon.com/Bullshit-Harry-G-Frankfurt/dp/0691122946)
The people I'm talking about do hold Ph.D's and teach in prestigious universities. Bullshitting is as an ingrained feature of intellectualism.
From what I've been told by obe of my professors, this book is about BS and how to tell if something is BS. Lol
Thanks for the contest!
In the little town where I live, the best pizzaria is run by Koreans, and my favorite bagel place is run by Pakistanis. Cultural appropriation is how the world works, ever since we learned to build ships and travel to other lands.
And since yesterday was Cinco de Mayo and there was a story in the news about some college telling white people not to celebrate it, let me point out that Cinco de Mayo is mainly an American holiday. In Mexico it's a minor regional holiday. I lived in northern Baja for four years and you can take my word for it that on May 5th, nobody celebrates and nobody even notices Cinco de Mayo. And if you didn't know, Mexican independence day is September 16.
In other words the contemporary PC hysteria about "cultural appropriation" is, in the immortal words of Harry Frankfurt, Bullshit.
Answering a question you don't know is actually an interesting topic. It's hard to say it's lying, because you don't know the answer you gave is wrong. If you don't know the answer, then your response MIGHT be correct. I think it's better described as bullshitting. There's a small, but fun read, on this topic. https://www.amazon.com/Bullshit-Harry-G-Frankfurt/dp/0691122946
Um, why are you trying to impress yourself. Your bullshit doesn't impress anyone, not even you.
I think that for Trump, (1) attempting to remember what happened a day ago and (2) rationalizing the events into a narrative that suits his needs are two things he is unable to separate.
So I wouldn't put it past him that at any given moment his amateurish bullshitting is also what he genuinely thinks happened.
I think this is the book that describes why bullshitters are way worse than liars.
On Bullshit, a book
As someone with a Masters in International Relations and Masters in Modern Political Theory I can assure you that these definitions are entirely concocted to confirm a pre-existing cognitive bias.
Terrorism is specifically designed term which has cognitive bias written all over it, and only those seeking to blur the boundaries of truth would ever try and specify the term to such a degree as you have done in order to justify western terror.
Let us be very clear - even your definition - means that the sanctions against Iraq which resulted in the death of 500,000 innocent children was terrorism - your definition insists upon that. Further, collective punishment of civilians is a war crime - fact.
Drone strikes, which deliberately target civilians as they are known to be there, and represent the overwhelming majority of victims, also known as targets, also confirms this. Which means, American drone strikes are by every possible definition - terrorism. Reclassifying civilian targets as collateral damage, which is another example of post definition cognitive bias, does not change the fact that the civilians were knowingly targeted.
The entire US war on Iraq (post mission accomplished and the fall of the Bathe party and Saddam military apparatus), Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Syria etc are all almost exclusively acts of terrorism with very, very small aspects of military engagement.
Due to the above "reality" - the blurring of common usage of terrorism and its definition and the accepted terminology of western intervention, war on terror etc, means that there is no acceptable genuine and absolute example of terrorism - hence, almost all modern warfare, which specifically uses "local assets", private military corporations, private military companies and mercenaries augmented with official military, enacted against civilian populations almost exclusively with very small percentages of actual military targets involved, are terrorist acts, enacted by terrorists.
In all my years of study there were two types of people, those trying to research and understand the truth, and those seeking to obfuscate and generate self serving propaganda - you are clearly in the latter.
On the first day of my studies, in the first class, the first thing given to us was this book - you might read it.
Actually, that definition is debatable. I highly recommend reading Frankfurt's On Bullshit for a thorough exploration of what "bullshit" actually is.
As mentioned, it may have been photoshopped - or it may have been On Bullshit, by Harry G. Frankfurt.
AVGN Book Club Book of November
This belongs here: https://www.amazon.com/Bullshit-Harry-G-Frankfurt/dp/0691122946
"Frankfurt proceeds by exploring how bullshit and the related concept of humbug are distinct from lying. He argues that bullshitters misrepresent themselves to their audience not as liars do, that is, by deliberately making false claims about what is true. In fact, bullshit need not be untrue at all.
Rather, bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant. Frankfurt concludes that although bullshit can take many innocent forms, excessive indulgence in it can eventually undermine the practitioner's capacity to tell the truth in a way that lying does not. Liars at least acknowledge that it matters what is true. By virtue of this, Frankfurt writes, bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are."
No one hates Mankiw's 'pragmatism'. They hate his mendacious bullshit. If you want to be taken serious as an intellectual, don't spend all of your time prepping for a post in the Romney administration.
Well put, and I do agree that "bullshit" is rampant.
You might like this book, it's a quick read, and the author expresses that very sentiment: https://www.amazon.com/Bullshit-Harry-G-Frankfurt/dp/0691122946
I liked On Truth and On Bullshit two tiny little books philosophizing about exactly what they say they are. I also highly recommend Borges' short fiction, each individual work is short, but you can consume as much as you choose since there are so many.
There is little that is "incorrect," but most of it is bullshit
Ignoring the insult in the first line, I mostly take issue with his willful ignorance of numbers that don't support his viewpoint and Republicans' roles in things like Obama's stimuli or their protection of Medicare during the healthcare debates. The stimuli may be guaranteed to lose money, but it is the Republicans who insisted that half the stimulus be in tax cuts.
The author may be right in that spending on wars + Bush's tax cuts are only 16% of the deficit, but that is still far, far, far larger than any spending cuts or tax hikes that have recently and actually been voted on with a chance to pass. The annual budget for Defense is over $600 billion, yet the suggestion to cut defense spending (overall) is ignored because the wars don't take up that whole amount.
Comparing tax cuts for the middle class (losing $2.2 trillion) and for the upper class (losing "a mere" $800 billion. ha) is not simply about the numbers, as he makes it (and he doesn't even provide that much information on the numbers. $3 trillion total over how long? surely not each year).
He doesn't seem to be arguing for anything, either. He is simply criticizing from an extremely biased point of view (which can be done well, admittedly). He should have just written this and left it.
> Either way, cuts are coming, and the main question now is what shape they will take and who gets to make the final choice
EDIT: and before anyone claims that I'm criticizing simply because of my bias, well my bias is probably not what you think it is, and here's me criticizing a lefty article for the same thing (or more properly, upvoting a criticism). I have little patience for bullshit on any side.
It does not mean anything. That is the power of bullshit. I suggest that you might like to read this book. If you read it and if you learn from it then you will have a very very well calibrated bullshit detector.
I own a book titled "On Bullshit" which is painfully pretentious, but entertaining. I wonder if it's on our assigned reading list.
It all depends on the goal. If OP wants to send a message, then choosing The God Delusion or God Is Not Great would certainly send that message. If OP wants a book that's a good read, both are still good choices, but now there're other books that are equally good choices.
The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality, The Portable Atheist, On Bullshit, On Truth, The Good Book: A Humanist Bible, The Moral Landscape, The Demon Haunted World, Religion and Science, and many others are excellent reads, but don't send that little (possibly unnecessary) jab.
> you were asked to "go to the walk-in" where one of the managers would tell you you're not being happy enough.
This is what I hate--the inauthenticity of it all. No one has a passion for fast food--it's just a fucking job that you do to get by. I understand not being rude to customers, any idiot who doesn't have to concentrate on breathing knows that. But being so god damn bubbly all the time is just fucking stupid. How am I supposed to react if I do encounter something I really am passionate about? Is my head supposed to fucking explode? It is just too much Bullshit
I'm not sure abut the specific case you're talking about, but I recently read the most charming little book that may help with questions like this in general, by Harry G. Frankfurt.
In this case, again without seeing where this came from, it doesn't seem unreasonable to think that Paul, assumed that he did talk to the apostles at some point, would very likely have known about the empty tomb. I guess the question is how many qualifiers and assumptions you have to make explicit in a given discussion at a given point.
How do you make a bullshitter stop bullshitting? He doesn't have any other way of communicating.
An interesting book:https://www.amazon.com/Bullshit-Harry-G-Frankfurt/dp/0691122946
> Here's a decks from the EU top 8 for Spring: http://www.gosugamers.net/hearthstone/news/35804-decklist-spotlight-all-decks-from-hct-eu-spring-championship Pretty good mix of combo, midrange, aggro, and control.
/u/bbrode not one priest deck. not one player even brought priest. but hey priest gets [[Power Word: Tentacles]] for 5 mana but i'm dead before I can put it on a minion. So Ben Brode that is bullshit. 5 mana we can buff they other guys 7/7 four mana [[Flamewreathed Faceless]] if i'm even alive cause bloodlust and 5 minions.
A pretty good mix is ALL players had SHAMAN, WARLOCK, WARRIOR. that's it. I think you come one here because you care and that laugh is infectious, but what you said is bullshit.
I can send you my copy:
Druid: 1/8 line-ups.
Builds: 1x C'Thun Druid
Hunter: 6/8 line-ups
Builds: 4x Camel Hunter, 2x Midrange Hunter
Mage: 3/8 line-ups
Builds: 3x Freeze Mage
Paladin: 3/8 line-ups
Builds: 2x N'Zoth Paladin, 1x Anyfin Combo
Priest: 0/8 line-ups
Rogue: 3/8 line-ups
Builds: 3x Miracle Rogue
Shaman: 8/8 line-ups
Builds: 5x Aggro Shaman, 3x Midrange Shaman
Warlock: 8/8 line-ups
Builds: 4x Zoo, 3x RenoLock, 1x CThun Reno
Warrior: 8/8 line-ups
Builds: 3x Tempo Warrior, 3x Control Warrior, 1x CThun Warrior, 1x Patrons
Edit: Some recommended reading