... how has it never blown up ever???
Conversation
i hate to break it to you but imo it's not that good a joke actually, especially if you've heard it before 😅
here are the four times it's been posted with "somebody," going back to 2012, the one you QT'd is the most it's ever blown up
1
4
Nawww it’s excellent
Maybe cliche and groansome to people who have heard it multiple times but it’s at *least* as good as my random “the Witcher is about freelancers” tweet which has hundreds of RTs
I think this is a function of how insular meditators are
2
14
now the interesting thing to watch is whether I can persuade enough people to bet on this tweet blowing up that it gets to a threshold where it might take off on its own. I think if it crosses 100 it’ll get to at least... 400-800
1
7
I just don't get it at all, can you explain it to me?
1
5
i get that this is an explanation of the joke and not a normative claim on your part but i find the idea of doing this disgusting personally 😬
3
14
FWIW, AFAICT the interpretation of it that makes it seem disgusting isn't what actually happens. (In a conceptual scheme where the lack of "I" means death, it makes sense for that lack to sound like a bad idea, but what actually happens is noticing how the scheme is mistaken.)
1
2
(Mistaken not in the sense of "you can be alive despite losing your I" but "actually your notion of the particular way in which you have an I was always off in the first place")
2
3
(Similarly with "removing want", which doesn't actually mean that one would cease desiring things, rather what's actually being removed is something like "a low-level belief that one has to get all the _specific_ things one wants in order to be happy".)
1
4
yeah insofar as this is the thing people are pointing to i strongly object to using the term “want” or “desire” for it. “craving” or “addiction” would be much closer and require very little additional explanation