this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2025
1011 points (97.4% liked)

Microblog Memes

7272 readers
3029 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Whorehoarder@lemmynsfw.com 10 points 1 week ago (7 children)

Fish do not exist because of pedantic technicalities? Reality isn't real

[–] A_Union_of_Kobolds@lemmy.world 39 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's more that biological classification is tricky and linear, and vertebrates went in and out of the ocean a few times

[–] Whorehoarder@lemmynsfw.com 7 points 1 week ago

Aha okay. That makes me feel better, thank you.

[–] miss_demeanour@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Have you heard about birds?
It's worse.

[–] Rusty@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 week ago

Birds also don't exist, it's all government drones.

[–] RedAggroBest@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

I mean they're just dinosaurs, which are also reptiles, which are also fish.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Birds, surprisingly, are just air fish.

[–] fed0sine@lemm.ee 2 points 1 week ago

Birds are the fish of the sky soup.

[–] PapaStevesy@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This is like bemoaning the fact that doctors don't treat "the humors" anymore. We gained knowledge that invalidated what we thought we knew, so we've updated our understanding. Unless you're a taxonomical marine biologist, it's really very unimportant anyway, I wouldn't worry about it.

[–] Whorehoarder@lemmynsfw.com -2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

At least I can stop worrying about the fishmen abducting me in my sleep, they don't exist anymore because of this classification revelation

[–] PapaStevesy@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yeah, they never existed to begin with, sowwy

[–] RedAggroBest@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'd say that since all men are fish-men your worries should be increasing.

[–] davidgro@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

That Innsmouth look.

[–] Derpenheim@lemmy.zip 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

No no, it's that humans are technically in the fish group of evolution, even though it happened a LONG time ago. That's what they mean by "cladistically", there is no "clade" of fish. Look up "humans are hagfish by Clint's Reptiles". He explains it wonderfully

[–] tyler@programming.dev 1 points 1 week ago

Wow. This video was great. Thank you!!

[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Just because we lack a definition, doesn't mean something doesn't exist.

[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's not even that we lack a way to define fish, it's more that we lack a definition that isn't arbitrary. One can define them as something like "vertebrates, except for all these ones that we don't want to include", but then there's not really a clear reason to exclude all the amphibians and reptiles and mammals and such, other than that they don't traditionally get called fish. Some of them even live in water, and a handful of fish can leave the water to a limited extent, so it isn't even that.

[–] SmoothLiquidation@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

So you are saying Pluto is a fish?

[–] notabot@lemm.ee 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

When it's a grouping that we lack the definition for, then the group doesn't really exist, even if it's members do and we all gave a good idea of what are, for instance, fish. Basically the group 'fish' contains all the things you think are fish, which is problematic as someone else may have a different idea of which things belong in the group, and while that's fine when talking coloquially, you can't really use it when trying to discuss things in a rigerous fashion.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The vast majority of language is not "rigorous". Colloquial definitions are incredibly important.

[–] davidagain@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Which is fine as long as you don't try to make rigid distinctions out of your arbitrary colloquia and claim to be acting logically.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You can make distinctions based on similar "fuzzy" definitions, as long as you allow room for inevitable exceptions.

[–] PapaStevesy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

We don't lack a definition, we actually just have so many narrower definitions that we don't need one for "fish" anymore. The old, broad definitions become archaic and often inaccurate as we gain more knowledge.

Yeah I disagree with the idea that there is no such thing as a fish.

It's like saying that there are no striped animals because both zebras and snakes can have stripes.

Sure, there is no common ancestor for hundreds of millions of years but that doesn't mean that they aren't a thing. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[–] LanguageIsCool@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

Scientists said the oceans would run out of fish by 2048. In fact, fish stopped existing today. Sick burn.