... you won't be able to use what you learn when terminal velocity is handing out participation trophies.
By granting balding men disability status, we address the systemic discrimination these men face thus shaving the way for a more inclusive, reflective society.
I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how I handle doubts and contradictory information, especially when it comes to my religious beliefs.
On the one hand, I really don't think doubt is inherently bad. It kind of acts like a knowledge-deficiency alert—almost like a warning light on your car's dashboard telling you there's something you haven't fully examined or understood yet. Confronting it seems objectively good because it forces you to do the research, which converts a passive "I've just always believed this" mindset into a conviction you've actually reasoned out for yourself.
But here's where I sometimes get stuck and wanted to see if anyone else relates. After you've done the initial assessment, looked fairly at the strongest counter-arguments, and reached a considered conclusion, it is so easy to keep consuming contradictory content. I catch myself sometimes watching ten or more videos or reading the same objections on various Subreddits that honestly recycle the same criticism. At a certain point, it stops feeling like I'm gathering new evidence and starts feeling more like I'm potentially subjecting myself to repetitive destabilisation.
I read an analogy recently that really clicked for me: engineers will stress-test a bridge to make sure it can bear a load, but they don't keep adding weight indefinitely to prove to everyone that they are open-minded. If they did, they wouldn't learn anything new; they'd just be pointlessly damaging the structure. Hearing the same contradictory claim repeated 50 times doesn't mean the actual evidence is growing.
The really tricky part for me, though, is avoiding the other extreme. I definitely don't want to fall into dogmatism or build an echo chamber where I declare, "I've made up my mind, and I refuse to ever hear criticism again."
I guess I'm trying to figure out a healthy middle ground. It feels like the right approach is to keep the door unlocked for genuinely new evidence or substantially stronger arguments. But at the same time, we probably shouldn't sentence our beliefs to a perpetual retrial where we feel intellectually obligated to entertain every single recycled objection that crosses our feed.
Here's some scriptural backing to support my argument:
I don't know; maybe I'm still figuring this out.
How do you recognise when you've reached the point of informational redundancy, and it's time just to set a boundary?
Everyone says Dino Melaye was caught lying because Uber and Zoom didn't exist when he was 18.
That's only true if you're making the rather provincial assumption that his cardinal age must correspond to his ordinal position on the Gregorian timeline.
Perhaps 18 was simply the amount of time he had experienced, while 2011 was merely where he happened to be.
He is 52 today because, after several backward excursions, his proper time has finally reconverged with Earth time.
Please stop fact-checking time travellers with subtraction.
This was all clearly documented in the documentary Tenet and its prequel, Interstellar.
It is also noteworthy that Melaye has publicly avoided commenting on time travel until this apparent Freudian slip.
I’m not saying that proves anything. I’m merely saying that this is exactly what a time traveller who didn't want us to know he was a time traveller would do.
I’ve been dead for four days without feeling a thing, but now I’m beginning to feel the increasing heat of the cremation furnace.
A cold sweat broke out as he completed translating the 1086 Domesday entry—“12 salted hams of flesh without skin and without hoof, the meat like unto man, from the table of the servants of Dæcga”—just as there was a sudden knock at the door.
I doubted them until I hacked CabTERO’s restricted online archives and found, buried among records of their extraordinary IVF success, a charcoal rubbing of an ancient stele inscribed: “Verily, verily, that the firstborn might live, it behoves Cain ever to devour Abel in Eden.”
Only after collecting its daily tribute of the first lacteal draught, will it re-enter through whichever orifice it chooses, until rapid nictitation confirms I have a 'live' child for another 23 hours.
Paralysed, I made eye contact with a rat under the stall, who looked just as horrified as I was, right before the wet lump glided into my open mouth, its voice echoing in my skull: "Cara, we need me."
The nurse waved Us into the uninfected zone, oblivious to the fact that We had finally learned how to counterfeit being alive..
We wouldn't even know how to debug an AI hallucinated fantasy when we've engineered that exact ability as a feature— meant to simulate ingenuity and Free Will—not a bug.
This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post
Calmly, the AI Concierge noted that respiration was an optional add-on feature available only at booking before confirming that Jim was a registered organ donor.
As she lay awake, she drew a sharp breath when spindly hands emerged from her parrot’s splayed ribcage and unlatched the cage, while something far larger—and tumescent—unravelled itself into the darkness of her bedroom.
While descaling on Sunday and reminiscing about our coffee's surprising new richness, I noticed a striking red streak... and some fur.