If I do not have access to a measurement tool with the degree of precision I want, and I am forced to compromise based on estimates (a common outcome in street vending, depending on the street), there are many situations where the 2+2 = 5 result is the fairer one
-
-
You get that, right Do you understand I'm talking about a completely commonsense, real-life problem here That there are plenty of situations where dogmatically saying 2+2 = 4 is a way for me to cheat you
5 replies 2 retweets 67 likes -
The more general way to phrase what I'm talking about is "Weigh them all together" If the scale has a fudge factor then adding up separate results from it will make it worse But the "2+2=5" idea is absolutely an accurate way of describing it
8 replies 1 retweet 56 likes -
1)This whole conversation has grown wildly out of control. The original point of 2+2=5 was to draw attention to subjectivism being introduced into mathematics.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @GhostMantis @arthur_affect and
2)Meaning that - in the particular context in which we commonly understand math (the axioms, scales, etc that are used in everyday math) 2+2 does not equal 5. Objectively speaking, in that particular context, 2+2 does not equal 5.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @GhostMantis @arthur_affect and
To bring up other scales or axioms in which 2+2=5 is disregarding the original context -the wildly obvious context- intended. Within this particular context it is objectively true that 2+2=4. There is no room for subjectivity of any kind.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
The use of the term "subjectivism" here is culture war bullshit that's beating on a strawman, that's my whole point
1 reply 1 retweet 26 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @GhostMantis and
There is no such thing as a "subjectivist" or its opposite, an "objectivist", in reality If you think that's what the two sides are here you're being an asshole
3 replies 2 retweets 24 likes -
I was entirely civil with you and you responded by calling me something nasty. This is the impossibility of conversation James Lindsey is talking about. I will not suffer ad hominem.
5 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Rational Academic. What’s Left of the Sound Left?! Retweeted Rational Academic. What’s Left of the Sound Left?!
Civility isn't part of Arthur Chu's mode of discourse. Agenda-driven engagement is his interest, so he uses various forms of dishonest exchange. Very characteristic of woke conversation. Another astounding example that just occurred:https://twitter.com/Aya62335284/status/1289681133777457152?s=20 …
Rational Academic. What’s Left of the Sound Left?! added,
Rational Academic. What’s Left of the Sound Left?! @Aya62335284Replying to @arthur_affect @XFitNYC @perdricofThat's a hilarious way to handle this. Wrong again. Now 2 cases of prima facie woke activism 1) Be wrong, call the other person wrong, doubt their qualifieds. 2) Be corrected, doubt again. An incredibly woke project you've got going on, truly a productive social contribution.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Lol do you really think anyone bothering to have this conversation on a sunny Saturday doesn't have an "agenda"
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.