• Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    27 days ago

    developing or occurring without apparent external influence, force, cause, or treatment

    Pretty much the definition of spontaneous if you ask me.

    • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      27 days ago

      Eh, it definitely has a cause. A known one. The fact water will boil isn’t spontaneous. “Spontaneous” still works for the sole reason which specific molecules is nigh impossible to predict.

      So, who is correct depends entirely on the mental framing of what someone thinks of when they read “water”. Water as an abstract idea of a specific type of fluid? Not spontaneous. Water as in what will literally happen to the bottle of water in the picture? Spontaneous.

      This post isn’t showcasing mansplaining. It’s showcasing pedantry. Nearly valid pedantry at that.

        • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          26 days ago

          Yes. Pedantry doesn’t make the guy more correct. He’s still being an ass. I’m not agreeing with him. So the fact you still don’t understand is a bit… sad for you. Do you treat autistic people like shit because they don’t operate on social norms and the most common understandings of statements? If you say, “no”, then I’d suggest you introspect a LOT more, because the answer is clearly yes.

          • BussyGyatt@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            26 days ago

            words have meanings. thats not what spontaneous means in this context. the definition of spontaneous in this context is independent of the nature of water. and i frankly don’t give a shit if you struggle with social norms. i care that the word has a meaning and you are abusing it.

      • porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        26 days ago

        Wrong, wrong, wrong.

        Eh, it definitely has a cause. A known one.

        Nothing to do with the physical definition of spontaneity. Spontaneity of a process just means that the ∆G is negative or total energy of the system is lower after the process, and additional energy isn’t required for the process to be thermodynamically allowed. This is, and I can’t stress this enough, the simplest of simple thermo.

        for the sole reason which specific molecules is nigh impossible to predict

        Also unrelated, but it is fully impossible to predict, since in trying to predict it well enough you reach quantum scales where everything is probabilistic. That doesn’t at all mean everything is spontaneous.

        So, who is correct depends entirely on the mental framing of what someone thinks of when they read “water”.

        Nope, the first person is strictly correct and the second is strictly incorrect, as described above.

        Water as an abstract idea of a specific type of fluid? Not spontaneous.

        Nope, exactly spontaneous. You could even forget about water entirely and model this just as a bunch of nuclei and electrons in a box and derive that the lowest energy state has them being in a gas of atoms, and the initial state doesn’t, which is enough to demonstrate by our earlier statements that boiling is spontaneous.

        Water as in what will literally happen to the bottle of water in the picture?

        This is “not even wrong” territory.

        This post isn’t showcasing mansplaining.

        It absolutely is. We will define mansplaining here as the confidently incorrect dismissal of statements of women by men where we suspect that the genders of the participants may play a role.

        The first part has been demonstrated above. It is also reasonable to assume the second given that we observe this happening to women at a far greater frequency than to men. Although, like with atoms, we cannot prove that this individual instance is a direct result, it is consistent with the probabilistic data and we would need additional evidence to conclude that this particular guy just goes around wrongly correcting everyone equally.

        Nearly valid pedantry at that.

        Once again, not remotely.

        • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          26 days ago

          Nah you just don’t understand language or pedantry.

          I said it takes an autistic reading to come to the non-standard conclusion. I’m also not agreeing with the pedantry, hence “almost valid”.

          I’m sorry you do not understand how autistic people misread things or jump to funky conclusions, but I am wholly correct and you just want to be an asshole.

          You’re probably one of those people that perpetuates the mistreatment of autistic people for shit like this. Pathetic of you.

    • Evil_Shrubbery@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      26 days ago

      Yes, afaik in science community that is in fact the correct use of the word, meaning from “environmental” conditions (well, it’s test conditions for the environment in this case) and not from an active, localised influence.

      • Dasus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        26 days ago

        I mean, if you put some stuff in a room, then slowly start to heat the room up, would you describe the things — which will at one point or another catch fire —as “spontaneously” combusting?

        I’m not arguing the use is wrong here, just a thought I had.

        • SparroHawc@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          26 days ago

          Yes, actually. The autoignition point is the temperature at which a given material will spontaneously (as in, without a spark or the like) catch fire, given a source of oxygen.

  • theneverfox@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    26 days ago

    I hate the mansplaining accusation, especially in this context

    Fucking let ideas compete. Call him out for being pedantic. If you have to bring gender into nearly any conversation about science, you’ve already lost

    Just shame them with better science

    • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      26 days ago

      The term “mansplaining” is not just about a man being pedantic. It is a man being pedantic or overexplaining to a woman either about something she is likely more knowledgeable on than he is or about something that is such common knowledge it should be assumed that she knows these facts as well as he does. It is a demonstration of misogyny through the assumption that you, a man, knows better than her, a woman, despite all liklihood to the contrary and yet you condescend to her anyway. It’s the arrogance and gender bias that is the problem, not the pedantry itself.

      • Pyr@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        26 days ago

        The thing I don’t like about the mansplaining accusation is it makes lots of men out to be sexist/misogynistic when they are really just pedantic twits that very well could have commented the same stupid thing to a man. But because it was to a woman someone has to accuse them of being sexist too.

        Don’t get me wrong there are a lot of sexist assholes, but just assuming it to be the case off a single comment irks me.

        • Soup@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          26 days ago

          (New person here)

          The big issue is that we don’t see men being pedantic towards other men at nearly the same rate. Absolutely it happens, but there is definitely a problem with men not respecting women specifically.

          Part of it, I think, comes from social conditioning and it’s more of a reaction than anything on purpose when it comes to a large subset of the people doing it. Even still, it’s important to gender it at least sometimes to highlight why we might be doing it and to give us the correct thing to reflect on. I’ve done it before where I could say it to a man but I realized that I what I was saying or doing was fueled, at least in part, by some internalized misogyny. Knowing that has helped me get to it before I do something stupid.

          • theneverfox@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            25 days ago

            Okay, but do you not realize how big a problem being discharitable to others is?

            The fucking fabric of society is falling apart. I’m sorry women get underestimated, like I do. It’s very annoying, believe me, I deal with it constantly

            But you suck it up, listen, and make them feel foolish with your response.

            The alternative is a further breakdown of communication. You can’t be primed to see others as bad actors, it’s so incredibly damaging

            No one is the villain in their own story. No one knows how smart they are, only if others are higher or lower.

            Listening to people tell you things you already know is inevitable. It’s social hygiene. It sucks, but it’s the social contract

            • Soup@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              25 days ago

              That’s a lot of words to say you don’t understand the difference. Not knowing something is fine, but fighting it like this is weird. You’re not helping anything with this comment and instead are basically trying to say that it’s not a problem enough to even talk about or understand. If you cannot handle this information that’s something to look inwardly at, not lash out at me for simply explaining what it is.

              Women feel talked down because they are women and they can see the exact same men treating other men differently. I regularly see this happen to them, too. Sometimes it’s a small accident and sometimes it’s very much on purpose and all of it is important to understand. I don’t know why you want to pretend like it doesn’t happen but it does either way.

              • theneverfox@pawb.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                24 days ago

                It happens, I’m not denying that.

                But the cure is worse than the poison. The term primes people to see it where it isn’t there, and that’s extraordinarily toxic.

                Call them a misogynist and be done with it. I know it when I see it. You know it when you see it.

                It’s like man spreading. It’s ok to be comfortable. It’s not ok to push into other people’s personal space. If you’re alone on a bench, who gives a fuck. If you want to signal “I’d prefer no one sit next to me”, that’s fine until someone sits next to you. Then you’re an asshole or you’re not, we don’t need extra words to gender niche behaviors

                Words are perception. Labeling a thing primes you to see it. These overly specific, gender based labels are harmful

                It literally makes the world worse for everyone involved to create subcategories of asshole behavior based on gender dynamics

                • Soup@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  24 days ago

                  The cure is not worse than the poison. And if you admit that it happens, and you also say we should call them misogynist if they’re doing it, then calling someone out for “mansplaining” is exactly that except for some reason you don’t like it.

                  It’s giving “I’m fine with the protests I just don’t think they should block traffic or otherwise get in my way.”

        • Karjalan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          26 days ago

          I think the problem a lot of people here are having is that they’re assuming the accusation is active sexism. Like it’s a cognitive decision to go “phht, what would she know, she’s a woman”.

          I suspect the vast majority of mansplaning scenarios are subconscious. They probably don’t even know that’s what they’re doing abs would never see themselves as being sexist. I think that’s because everyone sees the word “sexist” and associates it with clichéd extreme sexism, like cat calling, not wanting a Female pilot, ignoring their ideas in meetings etc.

          The thing about subtle unconscious bias is that you’re almost never aware you’re doing it, but it still has similar effects on the affected group.

          The healthy thing to do is to listen to the person it’s affecting, analyse the scenario, and reflect on if it’s something that you, or people you know, might have been doing without realising.

          • theneverfox@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            25 days ago

            Counterpoint - explaining things the other party knows is how you get on the same page.

            I don’t give a shit about your degree or your gender, it tells me nothing about where you’re at. Most people are fucking idiots who have no idea how anything works, and that includes doctors and probably astronauts

            And I say this as someone constantly underestimated. Yeah, it’s annoying to hear things you already know at a basic level. I ask people if they know about things and take them at their word

            But this is just normal communication. I don’t know what you know, you don’t know what I know. I probably understand how your mind and body work better than you do, because most people don’t know how their mind and body work beyond a 4th grade level

            Explaining things the other person knows is undesirable. It’s also how most people reach the starting line for a dialogue

    • Baked86@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      26 days ago

      He’s just trying to combat misinformation, the gall to accuse someone of sexism after being wrong is staggering.

      • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        26 days ago

        She wasn’t wrong though. It does happen spontaneously in that it is happening without apparent external cause. There is an external cause, the change in pressure, but it is not apparent. And most people are aware that water boils at low pressures at room temps. He even said it was “basic thermo”, so of course a NASA astronaut would know about this basic scientific phenomenon, as would most people.

      • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        26 days ago

        Do you honestly believe that the astronaut doesn’t understand how boiling water works?

  • Anas@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    26 days ago

    Again, who’s recreating Twitter screenshots really badly, and why? There’s a person on Reddit with like five alts who’s been spamming these posts, and I’m so confused by it.

  • affiliate@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    24 days ago

    yeah she may be a nasa astronaut and everything, but probably still doesn’t know as much as i do about boiling water. (i have cooked lots of pasta)