#Objective Truth

[sunkissedliterarylightofchrist]

While we're on the topic, depiction does not automatically equal glorifying or agreeing with that thing. So if you have a problem with a piece of media just because it has elements that show we live in a fallen world, that is incredibly unrealistic- and then you can't even appreciate 'good Christian' media. Christian literary giants still have those sinful elements in their work just as much if not more than secular ones do. Because you have to show the darkness for the light to pierce it.

The difference between depicting something and glorifying it is how the author uses different tools to depict what they're showing and saying and what message they're getting across with their work. So even if you're just looking at something to chill out on your down time, and don't want to or don't have the mental capacity to analyze it, at least think about what it is saying and why and how it all works together to tell the story and how the worse aspects of it contribute to the central themes.

AND EVEN THEN if a work DOES glorify something sinful because that's what the author believes in and wants to promote, that isn't an automatic no to you consuming that media either. That is up to you to use your wisdom and discernment to see if you can enjoy that media while ignoring or not supporting those particular aspects of the media or if you should blacklist it completely because its so sinful and by consuming it you are convicted that you are sinning, or that it might lead you to sin if you struggle with that thing.

There is more nuance than you think there is in everything. Be wise about it.

[nietzsche-mustache]

Postmodernism's rejection of truth has hurt us more than is generally understood.

[babsbabbles]

its a thought I want to visit later, but I wish there was more talk about the freeing nature of objective truth. a lot of people treat it like chains to be loosed of, but being able to say "this is" or "this isn't" opens up worlds of possibilities and the full understanding therein that "anything goes" can feel lacking of, at least to me

there's also a difference between objective truth and application. something true can be applied differently in different scenarios, and should be applied at different intensity in different scenarios. (eg. salt enhances flavour and preserves food. too much salt overpowers other tastes, dries out food, and can make you sick. no salt can make you just as sick. some people should have less salt or more salt than others for their health. salt is salt and nothing you do to the salt beyond molecularly altering it will stop it from being salty. If you molecularly alter it then it is not salt.)

[veterancoffeemaker]

Objectively Ranking Every Number Numeral By How Interesting They Are

My highly objective and unbiased analysis of each number 0-9

10 — 8: Someone has to be the most boring and that number is 8. Quite simply, what does 8 have going for it? It’s the cube of 2, which is something, but that’s just not very interesting. It’s only the second hardest number to multiply by? It’s a sideways infinity, sure, but I’ve never seen that used for anything besides the [Infinity][Rotation matrix] = 8 meme. Just a boring number really, without much going for it.

9 — 9: Same as its placement, 9 is a bit of a tease. It’s truly the Thursday of numbers, it’s main weight coming not from itself but what follows after it. It is basically numerical edging, so close to 10, nice round 10, but just barely not. Otherwise, what does it have going for it? It’s the square of 3, but that’s not really that big of a deal. It comes up with .999… which is something, but just another 10 situation. Really, the only thing that brings it above 8 for me is its German side, at least I’ve seen more wordplay memes involving nein than I have for 8. Pretty mid number all things considered.

8 — 4: Similar case to 8, but with a few advantages. To begin with, unlike 8, it’s the square of 2 rather than the cube, which is inherently more interesting. Also just a much better quantity in general than 8 or 9 is. 4 of something has to meaning to it. The four elements! The four great kingdoms! The four great heroes! Whereas in 8 or 9’s case, what meaning is there? What difference can there really be between 8 or 9 of something? And don’t even get me started on geometry, octagons may be a classic shape, but squares are one of the core shapes. Not to mention rhombuses, diamonds and more. Still, falls short in a lot of other areas which I feel really hold it back from being further up.

7 — 5: Now things start getting good! 5 is just a solid number, multiplying into 10, it’s the only odd number that really feels good to get. Not to mention there’s just a lot of iconic 5s out there — 5 fingers, PS5, etc. — all of which really help give it an identity. Nothing against 5, it’s just a solid number, but others are better.

6 — 7: Alright, let me start this off by saying 7 IS AWFUL! This is, by far, the worst number. Anyone who disagrees is simply traumatically repressing their memories of multiplying by 7. HOWEVER! It is that same fact which makes 7 very interesting. As evil as it is, I have to give it credit for that. It also has some good cultural ties, being seen as a strong magic number. It’s also where quantities really start feeling large. 6 of something is an amount, but 7? That’s when you really begin to have a fair amount of something. Not to mention its strange ties to primes. If you multiply by 7, then add and/or subtract by one less than you multiplied, you’ll find a prime (besides multiplying by 8 for obvious reasons). Why does this work? I don’t know, but it’s cool! It’s weird! It’s intriguing! Point is, 7 sucks, but in an interesting way.

5 — 3: Another solid number. 3 really feels like the start of the normal numbers. 0,1 and 2 all have some quirkiness to them (which will be discussed later) while 3 is far more grounded. Still, 3 is far from boring. You like triangles? That’s 3 right there. Just think of all the triangle stuff that ever comes up, from Pythagorus’ theorum to the triangle inequality to much much more. Also the classic magic number (third time’s the charm and all) along with 3 just being a powerful number. Tricolons are used for a reason. 3 things just carry a weight that you cannot replicate with only 1 or 2 of something. There’s just a lot going for 3, definitely a top number.

4 — 6: Probably the most controversial take here, but a lot of people sleep on 6. While 5 may take most of the multiplying credit with our traditional base-10 system, 6’s multiplicative power shines in a lot of places where multiples of 12 are used (i.e. time or angles measured in degrees) but that’s not all. Geometry? You have hexagons (yes, indeed, the bestagons), one of the most iconic and generally useful shapes apart from the core three. Perfect tiling, no spaces, great for game boards, a truly incredible shape. Not just that, but 6 is also, mathematically speaking, a perfect number. While I could explain what that is, telling people “6 is mathematically a perfect number” and not explaining why is far funnier, so I won’t. All in all, truly top tier number, people definitely do underestimate it, but I hope to do it justice here.

3 — 1: It’s number 1, do I need to elaborate? It’s the number, the first number. It’s often the baseline for so many things. When you get a 1 as an answer for something, that’s often a sign things went perfectly. I’d even throw in some mention of its strange cousin -1, the multiple you use to flip the signs — not to mention its root being the definition of i and thereby all imaginary numbers. I really don’t feel I need to say much more here, 1 is just an absolute classic number.

2 — 2: Another absolute classic. 2 just is an incredible number. It’s the only even prime, hell, it’s the BASIS for all other even numbers. I also can’t go without mentioning base 2, aka, binary. Yeah, this number is what you have to thank that you can even read this right now. It’s really similar to 1 in that I can’t really explain what it does because, I mean, it’s 2. Think of how many things have 2s, because I sure as hell could not list it all here if I tried. Once again, 10/10 number, truly peak numerical.

1 — 0: Finally, we reach 0. If 2 was a 10/10 number, then this is a 0/0 number. Quite frankly, if you’re not the slightest bit scared of this number, then that only shows you do not understand its power. It is the eldritch entity of numbers, that thing whose numerical is never to be spoken of. It’s not just nothing, it’s 0, the emptiness, the end. Whether by multiplying or dividing, all others are the same to it. It can often break mathematics when it shows up, but it has to for it holds great power. While infinity may be an unreachable zenith, 0 is both the closest and furthest we can get to it. Is it an even number or is it even a number? It is what it is. It is nothing. It is infinity. It is 0.

Anyway, I have a maths exam in twenty minutes which I could’ve studied for, but instead decided to write this. Hopefully it was of some use or enjoyment to somebody.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: LGBT Courage Coalition

Published: Feb 13, 2025

Linguists have long understood that language is power. Words don’t just describe reality—they shape it. Style guides, dictionaries, and institutional norms have always played a crucial role in setting the boundaries of acceptable language. Yet when those boundaries are deliberately manipulated, language becomes a tool not for clarity, but for control.

The pronoun debate—starting with “preferred pronouns” and culminating in ze/zir, bunself, and tree/treeself—is not about kindness or inclusivity. It is about forcing compliance with an ideology by rewriting the rules of language.

This is where style guides come in.

Style Guides as Weapons of Authority

From The Associated Press Stylebook to The Chicago Manual of Style, professional style guides dictate how writers, journalists, and institutions use language. They provide the scaffolding of public communication: what to capitalize, how to use punctuation, and which words are acceptable for describing the world.

Historically, style guides have evolved slowly, reflecting cultural consensus rather than enforcing it. Yet in recent years, style guides have become weapons for activism—tools for linguistic revolution, often at the expense of clarity and truth.

The Associated Press Stylebook now mandates that writers respect “preferred pronouns” and use they/them as singular pronouns. A demand once relegated to niche activist circles is now a formalized rule in mainstream journalism. Reality is obfuscated by enforced language, as writers are instructed to prioritize identity claims over clear communication.

Consider the recent changes in academic publishing. The American Psychological Association (APA) Style Guide now suggests writers avoid terms like mother or father in favor of “gender-neutral” alternatives like parental figure. Similarly, the AMA Manual of Style, used in medical writing, encourages the avoidance of biological sex by substituting terms such as gestational parent for “mother.” A search of medical articles on Google Scholar for the phrase “pregnant people” in the title since 2018 yielded over 500 results. These are not neutral decisions. They strip words of their clarity and obscure material reality under the guise of inclusivity.

Even dictionaries have joined the fray. In 2020, Merriam-Webster added a new definition of they to mean “a single person whose gender identity is nonbinary.” While dictionaries once documented language as it evolved organically, they now play an active role in shaping cultural norms. Words are redefined not to clarify meaning, but to enforce ideological positions.

Neopronouns: From Style to Chaos

Once the linguistic dam broke, neopronouns flooded in. Ze/zir, fae/faer, bun/bunself—pronouns that bear no relation to sex, grammar, or reality—have now entered activist discourse. These words are not natural evolutions of language. They are ideological inventions.

Here’s the thing about style guides: by codifying language, they give it legitimacy. The mere act of inclusion transforms nonsense into something “official.” Once enough institutions normalize ze/zir as a pronoun set, refusing to use it will not just be unfashionable—it will be heresy.

This isn’t about linguistic diversity or creativity. It’s about control. Neopronouns serve no communicative purpose. They do not clarify who someone is. Instead, they demand that others participate in an individual’s self-concept—often at the expense of their own principles.

Linguistics and Reality: The Disruption of Shared Meaning

Linguist Ferdinand de Saussure taught us that language works through shared symbols. A tree is a tree because we agree that the word refers to a tall, woody plant. The system works because words have meaning—agreed-upon, stable meanings rooted in reality.

Pronouns historically functioned as linguistic shortcuts for biological sex. They help us navigate the world without constantly restating someone’s name or their sex. By insisting that pronouns no longer correlate to sex—or worse, by inventing entirely new sets of pronouns—we shatter that shared meaning.

The result is confusion. A pronoun like bun/bunself tells us nothing about the speaker except that they demand linguistic obedience. It is not descriptive, it is performative.

And when language ceases to describe reality, it becomes impossible to communicate it.

Who Decides? The Institutional Capture of Words

The style guide is not neutral. It carries authority because it tells writers what to do. But who gets to decide what the rules are?

Organizations like the AP, The New York Times, and GLAAD exert immense influence over language. Their decisions on pronouns, gender-neutral terms, and “inclusive” language are not reflections of organic linguistic change. They are ideological prescriptions, enforced from the top down.

Consider recent developments in The Lancet, one of the most respected medical journals in the world. In a 2021 cover article, the journal referred to women as “bodies with vaginas,” reducing women to anatomical parts in the name of gender neutrality. Words that once communicated clear meaning—like “woman” or “mother”—are systematically erased.

Similarly, the National Institutes of Health now uses terms like egg-producer or chestfeeding parent in its official publications. These shifts are not evolution of language—they are political choices to obfuscate sex and replace it with gender ideology.

Style guides, medical journals, and dictionaries are institutions of authority. When they rewrite language, they rewrite reality.

The Consequences: Reality on the Chopping Block

When words lose their connection to reality, truth becomes subjective, and meaning becomes meaningless.

Women cease to exist as a coherent category because “woman” becomes “anyone who identifies as such.”

Lesbians—women attracted to women—are pressured to accept males who claim she/her pronouns as part of their orientation.

Children, confused by language and ideology, are told they can be ze, fae, or even catself—whatever they feel.

This linguistic breakdown does not free anyone. It traps us in a world where language reflects ideology, not reality.

Reclaiming Language: Resisting the New Rules

What can we do in the face of this linguistic revolution? We can refuse to comply.

Speak plainly. Call men “he” and women “she.”

Resist style guides that mandate ideological language.

Challenge the institutional capture of words and insist on their connection to material reality.

Language matters because words matter. When institutions redefine words to obscure sex, erase women, and confuse children, they are not helping society—they are dismantling its foundation.

It’s time to reclaim language as a tool for truth, not tyranny. The style guides don’t own our words.

In the end, this is about more than pronouns. It’s about the power of words to define reality—and the responsibility to resist when they are weaponized to erase it.

[exhaustedpigion]

"Consumed by practical pursuits seeking practical results, and armed with pragmatic truth [], we have lost interest in objective, disinterested truth--as though useless if there's no practical benefit. We walk past the good itself, the beautiful itself, the real itself, if they do not work to practical purpose."

-Robert Gilgulin, "Why Philosophy Matters"

[erebusvincent]

I’m sure this goes against everything you’ve been taught, but right and wrong do exist. Just because you don’t know what the right answer is—maybe there’s even no way you could know what the right answer is—doesn’t make your answer right, or even okay. It’s much simpler than that. It’s just plain wrong.

-Dr. Gregory House

House, M.D.

Three Stories (2005)

[shocckk]

Ok, here is a clarification post

This is the objective truth and is not up for discussion

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Absolutism

Absolutism in philosophy is the belief that certain truths, values, principles, or laws are universally valid and unchanging, regardless of individual perspectives, cultural differences, or situational contexts. Absolutists maintain that there are objective standards that apply to all people at all times. It stands in contrast to relativism and subjectivism, which argue that truth or morality is contingent on individual or cultural factors.

Key Aspects of Absolutism:

1. Epistemological Absolutism

Objective Truth: Absolutism in epistemology holds that there are absolute truths that exist independently of human knowledge or perception. These truths are universally valid, and human reason or inquiry can discover them.

Certainty in Knowledge: Epistemological absolutists believe that it is possible to attain certain and objective knowledge about the world. This contrasts with epistemological relativism, where truth is seen as relative to individual or cultural perspectives.

2. Moral Absolutism

Universal Moral Standards: Moral absolutism asserts that there are objective and unchanging moral principles that apply to all individuals, regardless of their situation or culture. For example, an absolutist might claim that lying is always wrong, no matter the circumstances.

Moral Objectivity: According to this view, morality is not based on personal feelings or societal norms but on universal ethical rules. Moral principles are seen as inherent to the nature of reality or human beings.

Divine Command and Natural Law: Some versions of moral absolutism are grounded in religious or metaphysical beliefs, such as the idea that moral laws are dictated by a divine being (divine command theory) or arise from the natural order of the universe (natural law theory).

3. Metaphysical Absolutism

Objective Reality: Metaphysical absolutism posits that there is a single, objective reality that exists independently of human perception. The world and its laws exist in a fixed state, regardless of how individuals or cultures perceive or interpret them.

Unchanging Nature of Reality: This view denies the idea that reality is constructed by human minds or is relative to different perspectives. Reality is what it is, and human beings can understand it through reason and inquiry.

4. Ethical and Legal Absolutism

Objective Moral Duties: Ethical absolutism holds that certain actions are morally right or wrong regardless of circumstances or consequences. For example, killing an innocent person is always wrong, no matter the situation.

Universal Laws: In legal or political absolutism, there is the belief that some laws or principles of justice should be universally applied, regardless of cultural differences. These are seen as immutable standards that transcend human invention.

5. Aesthetic Absolutism

Objective Standards of Beauty: In aesthetics, absolutism holds that beauty is not merely in the eye of the beholder but has objective standards. Certain works of art, forms, or expressions are considered universally beautiful or valuable.

Timeless Art: Absolutists in aesthetics may argue that some artistic creations or forms of expression have lasting and objective value, transcending time and culture.

Absolutism vs. Relativism:

Absolutism maintains that truth, morality, and reality are objective, universal, and unchanging.

Relativism holds that truth, morality, and knowledge are context-dependent and vary based on individual, societal, or cultural factors.

Criticism of Absolutism:

Cultural Differences: Critics argue that absolutism overlooks the diversity of human cultures and experiences. What may seem like a universal truth in one context may not apply in another. This criticism is especially strong in moral absolutism, where cultural relativists argue that morality is context-dependent.

Moral Dilemmas: Absolutism can struggle to address complex moral dilemmas where strict adherence to a universal principle might lead to negative outcomes. For instance, if lying is always wrong, is it wrong to lie to save a life?

Inflexibility: Absolutism is often criticized for being rigid and dogmatic, leaving little room for adaptation to new knowledge or changing circumstances. This can make it difficult to apply in diverse, modern societies.

Absolutism asserts that there are objective, unchanging truths and values, often grounded in rationality, natural law, or divine authority. While it offers a clear and stable framework for understanding the world, it faces criticism for its rigidity and inability to account for human diversity.

[artist-issues]

With all the remakes, and creators selling their beloved franchises to the highest bidder, and script-bids going on, it's easy to see how ego or public perception is making filmmakers gaslight themselves.

Rowling, Lucas, you name it. If something's getting additions in the here and now, the creators are coming up with things they say they thought of all along--when clearly their original content doesn't support it. Or, they're claiming that new handlers of their franchises don't "get it..." but not explaining where the new handlers are going wrong. You know why? Because the new handlers aren't in the original creators' ever-changing, ever-growing heads. They can only build something off of what the creators made. Not what the creators think about what they made.

I soundly believe that when a storyteller puts a story out there, it's told. And, as it is, the story is the true snapshot of what the storyteller was trying to say, thinking, and feeling, in that moment.

And then.

Because human beings are changeable, influenceable, and sometimes don't even know they're changing or being influenced, and often impose how they've changed onto their memories--

Those storytellers can forget, or lie, or think incorrectly about what they were thinking, feeling, and trying to say when they put that story out there. They can do a little revisionist's history, in their own minds.

Not every storyteller does this. Some have the presence of mind, and introspective habits, and philosophy on storytelling, to look back at what they made and say, "here's what I was really saying back then, and here's how I think differently now, or would have done it differently."

See, what the storyteller said in their story is what matters... not what they said about what they said in their story. That only goes so far. Because once a story is out there, it's like the words you speak. You can't change them or take them back.

You can say, "wait, well, that's not what I meant." But you know what everyone else can respond with? "But that's what you said." (With evidence.)

If we're out hunting and I say, "shoot that duck!" and you pull the trigger, and I go, "noo, why did you do that? I meant shoot the rabbit!" who's fault is it that the duck is dead? It's mine. Because you acted on what was outside of my head (my words) not what was inside of my head (my alleged "meaning.") You can only interpret meaning by way of evidence.

The storyteller is human, so they change. But their finished story doesn't change. It's don't changing. It did it's changing in the rough drafts, the pre-production, and in the creator's imagination: now it's not changing anymore, because it's been told. So, they can be wrong about their own work if they contradict their own work.

But you know what? If your theories contradict their work? Then they're wrong, too. The story says something objective: figure out what it is.

And that's an important thing for other storytellers to remember. Communicate clearly, and make sure what your story is saying is true--unchangeable, solid, dependable truth. Otherwise, you may regret what you said later on.

[futurebird]

Is everyone beautiful?

PART I - Basic Social Skills PART II - Objective Beauty PART III - The Hate Trap LOOKING FOR AN OBJECTIVE ANSWER TO THE "AM I UGLY" QUESTION

It might be a little frustrating there isn't an objective way to tell which of the possible reasons have made you think "I'm ugly." It might be frustrating there isn't just some test you could take that would tell you if your self-perception is correct. It might be tempting to try to find some "scientific" way to get an answer. The thing is, this isn't really a scientific question. It's about how you construct yourself and how you ultimately shape your feelings about yourself. Anyone claiming to provide a scientific answer to the question "am I ugly" is trying to sell you something!

Do you tend to obsess about 'objective' standards such as, height, income, BMI, face symmetry or percent body fat? Are you susceptible to reducing your complex problems to something simple by making it all about not having the right numerical score on some metric? If you are susceptible to this it's an important thing to know about yourself. You will be much happier and save yourself so much time if you live in a way that recognizes this tendency. That doesn't mean ignoring all numbers, but rather recognizing that you are easily tempted to use them as a short cut to feeling like you are in control.

SELF IMPROVEMENT

Everyone knows self improvement is important. From learning new skills, to staying in shape, to updating how you clean your living space it's natural and good to want to improve.

You don't need to hate who you are now to be a better person later. You don't need to hate who you are now to be a better person later. You don't need to hate who you are now to be a better person later.

The self hate will *not* "motivate you more." It might provide a burst of frantic activity sometimes... but, in the long run, the growing sadness will make most kinds of self-improvement harder not easier.

You need to like at least *some* things about yourself-- or you won't be motivated to take care of yourself and improve. If you think you are disgusting, and terrible why would you bother to get better? Especially, if it might not totally work?

Avoid the trap of thinking that hating yourself will keep you motivated and focused on change because hate is a very inconsistent emotion. It's also unpleasant and unhealthy--

Change can take a long time. And some things can't be changed, or if they can the process is so unpleasant that you might not make it.

Don't make feeling OK and being happy something that you will only reach in the future when you "fix" everything.

You don't have to like everything about yourself, just some things. Maybe it's a skill, maybe it's something unique about your personality, maybe it's the color of your eyes.

Even if you are in camp "I'm ugly, so what." there's something. When you like yourself you will find that improving gets much easier!

[the-sixth-wheel]

I don't understand how some people think morality "changes with time" like. We discover and understand morality better as time passes, but a discovery isn't an invention. When women and African Americans got equal rights in the USA, it was not some new principle that had taken over, it was a better understanding of the fundamental morality that has existed since time immemorial. There is an essence of truth to the principle of equality, which lies in the fact that God has given every human a soul, a divine bit of himself, and this makes them fundamentally equal to other human beings since their existence began.

If you perceive morality to be something that changes with the progression of time, you remove the fundamental essence of truth and love behind it, and make it nothing more than a fad or an arbitrary societal construct.

[mhb-oficial]

🇺🇸 The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. Lies will pass into history.

- George Orwell

[train-of-trainkind]

This happened 5 minutes before the lead pipe

someone has definitely done this before but thats ok

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]