Yeah, I appreciate it. It’s so aggravating seeing silly baby shit like this that only serves to hold any actual progress back. It’s not only eyeroll-inducing to hear things like “hUmAn BaD” or “America bad”, it’s just entirely unhelpful for how childishly oversimplified it is. I appreciate the passion many leftists have that talk like this, but it does so much damage when it misses the point just so very hard.

Removed for “civility”. What a fucking joke. People get bent out of shape over the most ridiculous shit.

Removed by mod

Oh hey, I appreciate you engaging with my absurd and irrationally earnest beef with this idiom.

So I hear what you’re saying about salt helping with bitter flavors, but I don’t think the flavor of poison is the primary issue with why you wouldn’t want to ingest it. I think my point still stands that if we’re doing this weird eating information thing, you still just don’t eat it if it’s poison, regardless of whether you do or don’t have an antidote. Or a way to flavor it.

I was actually aware of the Latin word translated as salt for this idiom also meaning wit, and I’m actually glad you brought it up. “Consider this with a grain of wit” would be a fantastic idiom and I’d be all for it. All the more reason “take it with a grain of salt” makes no sense if it’s a bad translation.

I understand the idiom stands as it does in our language because language standards are more about usage than rigid systemic rules, but COME ON! There’s gotta be a line, right? I get that trying to standardize language is real tricky and historically has been very problematic (looking at you, rich Victorian British fucks), but man, some of these things are so useless that they couldn’t even qualify as filler words. I know it’s weird how hard I hate this fucking idiom, but also fuck this idiom.

Not trying to throw shade your way, just to be clear. I appreciate your engagement. All shade reserved for this damn idiom, though.

Man, to this day the phrase “take it with a grain of salt” makes no sense to me. For one, I see people use the phrase(as above) as adding a singular grain of salt… which wouldn’t do anything. But if, as suggested here, it’s more to point out that further seasoning and/or flavoring isn’t required, then what… what? Are we eating information? What does that even mean? If it’s seasoned, then why does that mean I should be skeptical? If someone makes something I would be skeptical of, why tf would I eat it?

I actually looked this up because it was(still is) driving me crazy. A possible origin of the phrase goes back to Pliny the Elder adding a grain of salt to a poisin antidote. Maybe it was to make the antidote easier to ingest(which, once again, a singular grain wouldn’t make a difference, so it’s possible that it’s a pinch)? So we’re skeptical of the antidote when we’re calling the info given poisin??? But it could also be the case that a popular myth was that a pinch of salt neutralized poison, possibly referring to a misunderstanding of Pliny the Elder’s recipe. But if something is poisoned, don’t fucking eat/drink it? Like seriously, if someone you don’t trust gives you food/drink that you think could be poisoned, and we even temporarily grant that a grain/pinch of salt neutralizes the pain, it STILL doesn’t make sense, because why would you accept anything from that person at all if you think they’re trying to kill you??? ALSO ONCE AGAIN, ARE WE EATING INFORMATION IN THIS HYPOTHETICAL??? WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN?

And then I’ve seen the camp of using salt as a currency, leaning into the value aspect of it, suggesting adding a singular grain of salt finally gives it value(which, like… is that what you mean?). Since the phrase is supposed to invoke skepticism, I’d imagine the value measured is truth? So if the salt you take the information with is skepticism, then how does the skepticism alter the truth value? And, again, if the information is worthless don’t buy it for any price, same as don’t eat the fucking poisin. At least in this scenario we’re not eating information.

In any case, and even aside from whether or not the idiom even makes sense, I don’t understand why the phrase is even used at all to advise skepticism since any usage I’ve ever heard or read of it is clearly(to me) redundant and/or unwarranted. “This comment comes from [unreliable source], so take it with a grain of salt.” Yeah? It’s an unreliable source. If someone already knew, the added idiom is kinda insulting. If someone didn’t know or disagreed(that it’s unreliable), then the added idiom only serves to add confusion. “The numbers may look promising, but take it with a grain of salt.” Okay? Yeah, obviously don’t draw conclusions from just “the numbers” as there’s always more to whatever form of statistical analysis this hypothetical is, but it’s totally unclear what the idiom is even trying to say. The numbers lie? The numbers are an anomaly? The source is unreliable? It actually looks bad if you look closer? And if it’s to point out that it could be any of those things and more, well no shit, bro. Once again, if someone already knows to be skeptical, it’s insulting and unwarranted, if someone doesn’t know to be skeptical, they need to be informed of the reason to be skeptical before “be skeptical” makes any sense. It’s functionally useless.

I don’t get it. I don’t get the appeal, I don’t understand how’s it’s supposed to mean what it’s supposed to mean, even granting that language and phrases evolve in strange ways. I don’t understand how and why people use it. I don’t understand how people see logic in it. I dunno, maybe I’m the idiot here.

TL;DR: Please stop eating information, thank you. I don’t understand the phrase, so take it with a grain of salt(?).

So their god has some kinda electromagnetic properties? Is that why iron chariots are his weakness?

Imagine being so much of a piece of shit that you ban people for talking about the genocide in Ukraine right now. Like, it’s even more wild because they claim to be a communist, yet they’re simping for a literal fascist state doing an old-school imperialist invasion.

All these years later and I’m still so pissed about how fox handled the show. Truly one of the great injustices of the century.

I still can’t get over how hilarious the scene of Mal fucking with Simon about Kaylee being dead was. The cut to them laughing was so perfect. The editing was so masterful in the show.

Speaking in a more meta-context, this is exactly it in the political world. In playing politics, you gotta play the political game. There are plenty of things to criticize the dems for, but man do most people in semi-recent history tend to oversimplify things. It’s just not as simple as throwing a filibuster at ‘the other side’ every now and then, you’ve gotta consider political capital, optics, legal maneuvers, precedence, etc. If you run up on the congressional floor and decide to filibuster all on your own with no support, you’re just a jackass wasting everyone’s time, likely harming your own cause in the process. Politics isn’t speeches back and forth with some money thrown around, it’s about building and wisely wielding social power. That includes knowing how to build solidarity with others in other constituencies.

Money.

This, except I legitimately do have a problem with authority. Fuck you, I won’t do what you tell me.

Oh, your English is great and legitimately feels natural, because I think you’ve communicated your point quite well. I can’t really dispute much of anything without sounding like I fundamentally agree with you, but I do have a seemingly small/semantic distinction that I think is important; I don’t think America’s primary core issue has been education or overbearing religious douchebaggery, but this weird extreme epistemological weight given to every individual’s opinion. It’s similar to the bullshit fuzzy philosophy the nazis would use to justify their ideology by insisting everyone should respect their deeply held beliefs. While I don’t think your assessment is perfectly accurate, I do very much believe it shows you’re paying way more attention than the average American.

It really is just simplistic bullshit that seems to trip them up, isn’t it? As a passionate lover of philosophy, I’ve come to a pretty good understanding of the sheer magnitude of what it takes to be considered an “expert” in any subject. And, hoo boy, my radical commitment to what is true has only served to illustrate to myself how much I lack in understanding… pretty much anything. I’m not one of those jackholes who do that smarmy-ass “I know nothing”, so I’ll admit that I understand a hell of a lot more than the average person in political theory and general pragmatic governance. So it’s both infuriating and baffling to me how often the average ‘right-winger’ decisively demonstrates how little they understand any political subject they have no business holding such a strong and certain opinion on. And really, that also applies for most people willing to talk politics in America. Like, how the fuck are people’s opinions so fucking strong for how shallow their position is???

Right, climate change, the thing that boomers caused and definitely not these huge corporations perpetuating a system making humanity dependent on fossil fuels. It was a generation defined by generally common experiences and not some dickheads on the boards of fossil fuel corporations covering up and then spinning up a disinformation campaign against the overwhelming evidence of anthropogenic climate change. No war but class war; know your enemy.

OPHA MAE JOHNSON, 1918