• funkless@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    yes, I was using the famous example that broke the Fin De Ciele -era snobbery about art and the distinction between artist and artisan to make a point.

    my point is that you can’t define it. So you say “should posts about the wheel be included?”

    and the answer is if you exclude all things about wheels where do you draw the line? someone creates a new type of ball bearing that revolutionizes manufacturing, but thats not allowed because it’s a wheel? Someone uses a new archeological discovery about an ancient device to invent a modern one? No posts about cars, trains etc? No posts about waterwheel generated activity?

    It becomes impossible to police.

    • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Like I said before, I understand the philosophical aspect of this argument. Strictly philosophically I even agree with it, but the argument has no practical value because it’s essentially saying “moderation is pointless”. In practice most people would still want moderation because some moderation (even if it’s not 100% correct) is better than no moderation.