pretty sure one would be more hard-pressed to argue that it did not exist. right wing propaganda is all enticing and dreamy under the guise of “america is the land of opportunity” and that everyone has a fair shot at succeeding. but as various studies, statistics and the wealth gap that is decently well-known among people who actually cared to seek out the research know this simply isn’t reality.

can’t enslave a group for approximately four centuries, “free” them, and expect them to get put on the same exact level to succeed and grow just as the free people who never were in that condition in the first place, amongst harmful stereotypes and arrogant prejudice.

Your post seems like a rhetorical declarative sentence: you asked no question, but you're expecting an answer.

Sorry to disappoint you with that observation, but no answer. — Relativist

this made me crack a smile lol

you lot on this site are something else

Beyond that, "not good" is not the same as "bad." — T Clark

oy vey

yes i understand, instead of having a word like “bad” it could easily be exchanged by just saying not “good” and it’d accomplish the same goal, just a word more or so. i see you’re not advocating, apologies if that’s how i worded my previous post.

well i guess my view would be is that it would increase verbosity at the expense of time due to lack of a word for it, i put time on a pedestal so the notion for me is inherently ridiculous, however i DO see the appeal in it for sure.

A disadvantage would be dilated discourse i.e. saying something or writing something would take longer and consume more space. — TheMadFool

you’re right that more nuanced discussion would arise with the idea, but if it’d encourage word vomit, don’t you think the basic means of conversation be unnecessarily riddled in verbose and walking around getting to the point of what one is saying? this would cause a ton of confusion, and it’s sacrificing simplicity just for the sake of complexity. it’d free memory space for the sacrifice of time, but i feel like people would value communication in a time efficient manner over making room for more memory space to partake in inefficient manners of communication? excuse me if im misunderstanding something or thinking too linear, it’s early over here

If by ‘exist’ you mean exist in spacetime, then yes. But don’t forget that you are ‘something’, too. And you also exist and have the capacity to interact beyond spacetime - to experience ‘yourself’ in the universe, as potential - and manifest reality to the extent that you are aware of, connecting and collaborating with the potential of all that you experience. — Possibility

This is a really beautiful thing. Thanks for breaking it down for me.

So let me get this straight, “something” can surely exist as long as there’s “something” else out there that can interact with it and/or react to it? Otherwise I can surely affirm that it does not exist because there is nothing else there to (kind of) ground it in reality?

Something sentient or intelligent right? Because I thought the same exact thing, just not very sure how to flesh it out lol.