Yeah, I feel this sentiment very strongly. Complacency is what they want, because then you just mindlessly participate in the system. It’s difficult to not participate in the system by default since it’s like “hey man, I just work live here”. So not only do you need to be educated in wtf these systems even are, why they’re bad, and how to best engage/disengage with them, you have to actively make an effort to change with energy not a whole lot of people have these days. Some may see this reaction to Microsoft as silly and overblown, but people getting rid of windows could literally save their life due to the systems of surveillance built by Microsoft aiding increasingly dangerous and malicious political actors.

Haha, thanks man. For me personally, I’m a socialist and punk to my very soul, so the hate for Microsoft runs ultra deep. In addition to everything I mentioned before, I’ve become much more wary of the software running in my house due to an increase in political risk. There’s no longer just a privacy consideration for general security, but now a heightened existential risk involved. Microsoft is part of the problem in perpetuating the existing system of oppression, so absolutely fuck em.

I’ve been absolutely seething over Microsoft’s bullshit for years. Over the years of having less and less control over my own fucking computer, the parasitic privacy invasion, the dumbfuck constant bloat, the cartoon level evil of Microsoft in general, the constant degradation, forcing unnecessary features and ads, and generally just the sheer audacity. Honestly, I’ve just kinda been putting up with it for not much more than “it works for now and I’m just tired, man”. However, then Microsoft started pushing ai and some updates that were literally bricking systems so I could no longer justify having a switch from windows being such a low priority; it was now a liability. I’m now running CachyOS and I’m quite happy with the switch. Everything just fucking works, not to mention the very noticeable performance boost. Fuck Microsoft.

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(?).

To call America a fascist state is just dishonest. To call the EU fascist is unhinged. Where America is certainly struggling internally with a legitimate attempt at a fascist takeover, too many fundamental principles of the republic remain intact to honestly define the country as a fascist state. There are plenty of things to criticize about the US government, it being fascist isn’t one of them.

Russia, however, is literally doing an old school imperialist invasion right now. Like, shaky casus belli and everything. They’re even throwing in a whole host of red flags indicating a genocide. Their “elections” are consistently used as textbook examples of rigged elections using statistical analysis. Political enemies of Putin are assassinated, jailed, and suppressed. The state sponsors a narrative campaign of a fictitious idealized Russian ethno-state. Public dissent is actively and harshly suppressed by the state. There are re-education camps to indoctrinate certain demographics with Russian supremacist propaganda. Russia is a fascist state. The tankies that rush to defend Russia online are defending a fascist state. That is directly contradictory to leftist principles and is, quite frankly, fucking stupid.

So to reply to someone pointing out how ridiculous it is for tankies to support a fascist state like Russia with “hurrdurr libs support fascist usa/eu” is yet another dishonest strawman wrapped in a red herring. And, certainly no surprise to anyone paying attention, just serves as another example of a tankie talking point that refuses to engage the actual argument.

Yeah, the support of a blatantly fascist/imperialist state like Putin’s Russia by self-described leftists is absolutely wild to me. I’m not convinced they’re serious people. Like, yeah, there’s some silly infighting between leftists online, but from my experience, it’s usually tankies saying some smug bullshit blanket statements and defending authoritarian douchecanoes.

I think this is a great question because it absolutely gets the point. The enemy is the system, not the people. This informs you both who and how you fight back. So when someone is saying something bigoted for religious reasons, the problem isn’t necessarily that particular person, but the religious system that brainwashed them. In fact, it was a specific flavor of that religious system.

I think a more clear distinction can be found in feminism. Feminism isn’t about fighting men, but fighting patriarchy. So, sure, there are men who are dickhead misogynists, but they are also potential allies that are also hurt by patriarchy. It’s the system and those who specifically aim to perpetuate said system. Social philosophers tend to point to systems rather than people constantly, because it’s so common for people to point out symptoms rather than the cause. So when we know to identify patriarchy rather than misogynists, yeah, we’ll still call out misogynist men for sure, but also women that perpetuate patriarchy.

So if I’m blaming the system rather than the person, maybe I’m recognizing the religious person’s commitment to truth and appealing to that rather than labeling them the enemy and writing them off completely. I think something that gets lost in all the polarizing bullshit as of recent is recognizing that a great way to make another bigot not exist is to persuade them to not be a bigot anymore. The enemy isn’t people, it’s the fucking system. Like the great poets have said: “Don’t blame it on the Needy, don’t blame it on the Poor, don’t blame it on the Jew, blame it on the system. Blame it on the fucking system.”

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.