Yes, and presumably anyone in the position we're talking about is somebody who would have devoted a decade to their education in the field. Do you think I'm talking about "I do my own research" types? No, I'm talking about real actual auto-didacts.
Definitionally we aren't talking about "your average person who has a GED," Jesus fucking Christ.
You can absolutely self-teach math and macroecon. I'm not trying to claim that Swift has, or would, or that it is an easy thing to teach, but the idea that it is somehow outside the bounds of the auto-didact is absurd.
A degree doesn't prove a person actually applied themselves and absorbed the information, and auto-didacts can absolutely study macroecon and diplomacy.
Oh weird, they're showing up under the "Chat" option for some reason?
I'm so confused by this post.
So this is a weird one.... I'm seeing in the post details that there's 8 comments on this post, but none are showing as visible to me.
I'm also not seeing anything in the modlog for this post.... so where are all the comments?
Did we decide to start fucking shadowbanning on Lemmy or something or is there some other explanation here?
If you know about the Tree-star, it's time to have a doctor check out your B-star.
Man, I fucking love LJS and wish I had one within driving distance.
Nothing like ordering a fish & chicken plank combo and not knowing which of the identical diamond-shaped planks is which before biting.
...
It's like people who drink bean water making fun of other people who drink bean water, and attaching way too goddamn much to all of it.
Personally, I think it's extremely unlikely. That's why I think Apatheism is the way:
The theist says there is a God with certainty, the atheist says there is no God with certainty, the agnostic says we cannot be certain the existence of God, and the apatheist says "guys why are we wasting our time stressing out about unknowables? Let's go get a pizza."
This suggests a cosmic reason or purpose, yet I find no evidence for that conclusion exists.
There just might simply not be a "why?"
Absolutely. But the harrowing part is realizing this applies to some folks we deem delusional in the context of our world too.
you:
me:
The topic started about Swift, but your claim was bigger than her. Thus my response was to your larger claim, not about Swift.