people still think we’re invincible

Who? The peons concerned about climate change and ecosystem collapse? Or the billionaires injecting kids’ blood into themselves, launching rockets to colonize Mars, or begging for donations to get them into the right afterlife?

What a tasteless and illogical thing to say

I see no text on the page you linked that references any connotation of superiority or purity. The first usage of the meme does not suggest either a superiority or a purity, as you claim; however, an audience might project their preferences and gatekeeping onto that which is without bias. In the vast majority of the examples in the link, there is simply a contextual miscommunication between two valid interpretations of a term; only a few examples do suggest superiority or purity. Deferring to imgflip, many of the user-made memes do not have that connotation, while some do. Based on these data, I do not see a subtext of connotation or purity to be necessarily implied in use of that template. The comedy can be derived from something as simple as a word having two meanings.

Once again, you have also claimed that I said something which I had not (prior to this comment).

Edit: adding this image

I think you’re reading things that neither me nor the above image have said.

If somebody’s just following dogma and thinking within a box, they’re not doing science.

I didn’t even interpret the meme as suggesting that one group of subjects is better than another, and I was disappointed to see so many commenters here thinking that their narrow or broad branch of study is better or more of a true science than other valid fields.

I take issue with how the meme says “Jupiter doesn’t orbit the Sun”, which rejects one valid and common way of using the verb “to orbit”.

I mean, the Wikipedia page for Jupiter says “Jupiter orbits the Sun”

It seems to fundamentally change what it means “to orbit” something.

As I understood the term, orbiting would be used correctly in these cases:

• A lighter object orbits a heavier object, and both of their paths of motion are elliptical about their barycenter

• Two objects of identical mass orbit each other, and their paths of motion are circular about their barycenter

In contrast, the image above implies the following:

• A lighter object does not orbit a heavier object; they both orbit their barycenter with an elliptical path of motion

• Two objects of identical mass do not orbit each other; they both orbit their barycenter with a circular path of motion

Even the Wikipedia page for barycenter, which OP linked to, opens with the following:

“the barycenter… is the center of mass of two or more bodies that orbit one another and is the point about which the bodies orbit.”

Perhaps “orbit” as a verb has two meanings, depending on the specificity of the context.

Jerry loves Pluto, but Bary thinks very little of it

Is it more true to say that Jupiter (and the other planets and asteroid belts and dust clouds in our solar system) orbits the Sun, and the Sun orbits the barycenter? The barycenter that the sun revolves around is influenced (marginally) by the other bodies in the solar system and not just Jupiter. If the definition of a barycenter is to be interpreted as this image suggests, that would mean that no material object orbits another material object and they instead orbit their collective center of mass somewhere in space.

Edit: to clarify, I understand the physics and motion at play. The phrasing just seems misleading/incorrect to me.

Ironic that Goliath was defeated by a sling and now our solar system’s Goliath is a sling

I don’t see the subject of their satire (someone who is seeking to or is able to alter the content of well-known literature, generally on store shelves or in schools) to be the same as the people who self-censor for online algorithms and advertisements. There is some similarity between the parties but I don’t think that was the author’s intent. People who want to censor others tend to draw attention to the emotionally challenging concepts with direct and emphatic diction since they want to convince people that the content is too extreme or wrong; in contrast, the online self-censorers tend to do so begrudgingly and wish that they were not in a situation in which they have to dance around words or concepts.

The Tumblr profile is restricted so an account on that website is required to see if the self-censorship is a common pattern in their writing or if it was just for this case.

This post that opposes censorship of emotionally challenging concepts selectively censored words which pertain to emotionally challenging concepts

I think what they’re saying is that companies have a financial incentive to provide goods and services that don’t last after use, so consumers have to either make do with what they have already bought or consumers have to buy more, thus giving the companies more money

deleted by creator

🆕💩

It’s not my fault I may make stupid errors - I blame the hazards of my environment