this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2026
573 points (95.3% liked)
Memes
56838 readers
519 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Wow abelism from a debatelord never seen that before. Apologies that my grammar isn't perfect in my fourth language your majesty I'll try do better in the future /s
The fact is you're wrong and are simply trying to find anything you can to weasel out of facing that fact that the field of social science is real, it's subfields are legitimate and you have nothing but vibes and misunderstandings behind your thought to try hold up some vague heir of superiority you feel.
😆
Daft isn't ableist find something else to cry about. Daft punk, the ableist band huh?
Add all of those together and it still doesn't equal society hence social sciences not social science, ie. The sciences that apply to society not societal sciences because that couldn't possibly be objective or would have to be subjective. Ps. So that's daft and tedious, you could have just said so.
Daft when used as a pejorative (a stand in for calling someone crazy or deranged) absolutely is.
Again simply because the field is yet to be completed doesn't make it illegitimate. Physics has yet to be unified, math has yet to be completed yet they remain science. You are severely uninformed and again I implore you to do some self reflection and actually engage with the science and scientific community. You are not as intelligent as you think and clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
Daft is usually a pejorative, it isn't however ableist that's just crybaby bullshit you're using to try move the conversation into culture war bullshit instead of the actual conversation.
Quite literally the exact reason it's not a science. Science is evidence based l, objective and repeatable. You're implying at some point without any evidence whatsoever that we could end up finding everything is objectively provable through what I can only assume is psychohistory which isn't likely our at all reasonable to assume. The fact the argument started as questioning if morals have weight is just more evidence that social science could never exist only social sciences. Ie. Sciences that relate to society not the science of society because that isn't a thing.
Calling someone crazy or deranged is absolutely ableist. The only one here trying to change the conversation is you.
Entirely not what I said, like completely not even in the same area of anything I said genuinely impressive strawman building.
I wonder what you call the field to which the sub fields you call social sciences might belong, it couldn't possibly be called social science as an umbrella term?!?!?!
You are unintelligent, uninformed and massively arrogant. You clearly have never interacted with or contributed anything to the scientific community and it really shows. Please take some time to reflect instead of continuing to be a debatepervert.
It doesn't solely mean crazy or deranged, it can also mean plain stupid. Take a crack at which I meant. Similarly that still doesn't make it ableist bud.
That's absolutely your implication hence the word imply.
It's not, there's natural science, social sciences and humanities.
So far you've proved nuh uh and the same attitude and arrogance, calm down there pot.
Yes it does bud. You are a an albeist asshole and should be ashamed of yourself.
But it wasn't it was a straw man not even in the same area of thought of anything I said.
I wish I could be as confident as you in just saying shit it really is a skill for the privileged.
See the difference between us is I have interacted with and contributed to the scientific community through my PhD and time as a researcher at a university whereas you given everything I've seen most likely didn't make it past mandatory schooling. You reek of YouTube university educated stemlord.
No it doesn't, use a dictionary. It's not ableist you're just exceptionally thin skinned it seems. Stay away from Europe bud, that's about the tamest informal you're likely to hear.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/daft
Its exactly what you implied you're just aware now that it makes very little sense.
Like reading rainbow said confidence is a book away, maybe try that dictionary first. Hint hint it's the tab with the big d on it.
Oh you're funny assuming I haven't and an Internet phd is usually bullshit but do go on establishing yourself as a self proclaimed expert in the field rather then provide literally any evidence or doing any research let alone looking up a word before crying about it for the better part of a day.
I was very clearly responding to
Hence ending that particular sentence in bud not your attempt to weasel out of using ableist language as everyone knows thats bullshit. Daft could have 10,000 other definitions but everyone knows which you meant before you were called out. Trying to shrodingers bigot yourself has never worked for anyone.
It's not at all what I implied and the fact you keep doubling down on this ridiculous strawman is what really makes no sense.
Yeah again were speaking English because it's your language you couldn't even speak to me in any of my more native languages so condescending about it is silly.
It's an educated guess given how you talk about what is and isn't science it's the kind of attitude that would get you laughed out of a lab until you fixed your attitude. It's the attitude of someone who watches science videos or has interest in some field of science like astronomy or astrophysics but has never actually studied it instead watching edutainment about it.
I wasn't crying about anything simply pointing it out and the fact that instead of simply apologising and moving on you felt the need to double triple and quadruple down just shows the kind of person you really are.
Why do you write like the world's most insufferable dork?
Aww, hit a nerve aye?
You just going down the list of cringy redditisms?
Go back to Reddit
There is no natural science.
Depends on what you define natural sciences as I imagine but under the generally accepted definition (geology, biology etc.) it 100% exists.
Add all of those together and it still doesn't equal nature hence natural sciences not natural science.
That's why people started referring to natural science as empirical science, you're not making the point you think you are because that's a sticking point in science.
It's just been referred to as "natural ___" since like 3000bc or something crazy like that, it'll take a minute to break the habit.
Please stop arguing about shit you have no clue of by making shit up while you go.
You lost the argument up there.
How do you measure the weight of morals? What happens if you leave the dimension of mere opinion? Please do not answer.
Ya huh, please stop making generalizations with no example and honestly no substance.
By jury generally.
The question isn't are they opinions it's do they have weight the answer is obviously yes hence the scales of justice. The only people who tend to wave away morality as opinion are usually not the good guys.