The antiđŸš«-derailment🚃 & threadđŸ§” hijackingđŸ”« threadđŸ§” ⁉

Lounge
793

Just to clear up any possible confusion, and also cause there has never been a better time or place to insert this (PG-13) video.

1 Like
794

I’m disappointed that “chesticles” wasn’t on that list


5 Likes
795

First of all, flashlight was - to little surprise - not able to shine a light through my boobies


Now that’s an interesting one! I actually try not to overthink my use of words in casual conversation (because I really overthink it when trying to say something important
), so I think initially it was just a “language thing”. First thing that came to my mind. What word would you see more fitting? Simply “having an implant”? Just asking, always trying to improve my skills :wink:
But I thought about your explanation



 and started to think about how I feel about that myself. I actually wear (?) a ring, a steel choker and (currently) 17 piercings permanently - but they’re all things I could take off with very little complication. Most people would see the word “wearing” pretty fitting for all that, and yet, I feel naked and a lot less “myself” when I take any of that off
 And still, I wouldn’t find a better word in english, so I’d say I wear all those stuff.

Thanks! That’s soooo great for someone learning english - “bouncing buddhas” is great! “Flying saucers” rather makes me nervous
^^

796

Only on the DT forum
 :slight_smile:

Is this a clever way of bragging that you have huge natural knockers? :slight_smile:

797

Hehe^^
Doubt it would shine through small ones as well, to be honest :wink:

798

I just say I have them installed. I don’t wear them, I don’t view chips as permanent, as my life doesn’t depend on them. (Think pacemaker)

799

That’s how I describe my own RFID implants. They’re not real human-machine interfaces. They don’t really augment me as a human being as I personally understand the word “augmentation”. They live their own lives under my skin and don’t interfact with me in any way. They’re under my skin as if my skin was a very permanent, waterproof, complicated to open and close garment pocket.

In short, they’re only objects I wear in such a close-fitting fashion that I can never lose them. But they’re not really part of me, or my sensory or intellectual experience, as a magnet would be, or a neural lace if such a thing existed.

800

This is one of those quirks of English I guess
 “wearing” an implant is almost like a verb
 it’s something you are doing
 but with breast implants (or any implants really), it’s completely inside of you
 wearing is like putting something on the outside of you
 so “she has implants” is correct, just like “she has two hands” is correct
 “she is wearing two kidneys” is not correct, and thus, “she is wearing two breast implants” is not correct either
 so yeah, to say “I have breast implants” is what is commonly used anyway, and is correct.

Yes this is where philosophy starts to come into play a little bit. When it comes to how one thinks of chip implants, I thought about prosthetics. A prosthetic seems to bridge this divide both legally speaking as well as the actual concepts being described in English. You could say “she has a prosthetic leg” or you could say “she is wearing a prosthetic leg”
 both are acceptable, though the subject herself might argue the word “wearing” does feel wrong to her, to anyone else “wearing” would be acceptable
 just in the same way you could say “she has earrings” or “she’s wearing earrings”.

I think this distinction is narrowed down to something that seems part of the body, but is on the outside, and something that can be “disengaged” or removed easily. Earrings, like prosthetic devices, attach to the body and are basically part of it for the duration they are “worn” on the body
 but the “wearer” can easily remove those items at any time
 they are as optional as putting on or taking off a watch or even clothing.

ooohhkkaaayyy
 in classic fashion, what was supposed to be a quick response during my morning tasks has turned into a whole questionnaire that I think is now something everyone should fill out.

2 Likes
801

Interesting
 yeah def fill out the questionnaire please :slight_smile:

802

Nah - Google Forms, sorry


803

It’s not asking you to log in for crusty’s sake
 use a vpn in private browsing mode from a tor browser if you’re wigged out.

804

I don’t use Google products when they’re not forced on me out of principle.

Seriously Amal, you should know me by now: I’m a nutcase :slight_smile:

1 Like
805

hah yeah I know
 but here’s my take on it
 if you’re properly protecting yourself then they can’t make money off providing a service
 like my wife wants to watch certain shitty TV shows but we agree the only way for that to be morally acceptable is if 1) we download them illegally (criminals!), and 2) she does nothing to promote them (no posting about them on socials etc.) 
 perhaps you could see yourself clear to find a way to stick it to Google by answering the questions without giving them anything in return?

806

Using a service you’re not entitled to use is still giving that service credit, acknowledging that it’s useful. I don’t want to give Google any reason to think their services are desired by me, by paying them a visit and registering as one more hit - albeit anonymous.

And that’s assuming they can’t track me - which is a big if, if you know anything about deanonymizing people, even when they use Tor or Gnutella or whatever, and particularly in the case of your questionnaire, considering how small the implants aficionado community is.

I don’t want to abuse Google, or stick it to them. I want nothing to do with them at all. It’s a bit different.

807

hah oh man, you don’t know Google very well at all them
 Check the graveyard of super useful services that tons of people were using them that they switched off simply because it wasn’t economical.

I get it :frowning: Your input would have been great since it’s so very @anon3825968 :wink:

1 Like
808

Don’t worry, my input about anything has no real added value in the big scheme of things. There are plenty of other people who will fill your questionnaire with valuable opinions, and it will end up just as interesting in the end as it would’ve with mine included in it :slight_smile:

1 Like
809

Whoa, went away for an hour and see how far we’ve got :smile:

@amal, thanks a lot for the explanation of wearing vs. having - this is a subtlety of language you usually don’t learn at school, I appreciate that!
And though I’m not really fond of google as well, I’ll take a look at the questionnaire - sounds interesting, and I just love the philosophical turn most discussions here tend to take :wink:

1 Like
810

Actually to be even more precise, when one says “she has earrings” or “he has a watch”, we are omitting the implied word “on”
 the full complete English sentence would be “she has earrings on” and “he has a watch on” 
 or 
 “she’s wearing earrings” or “he is wearing a watch”
 the word “on” which was omitted is the key, and confirms that “wearing” means “on the body” not “in the body” or a part of the body.

811

But wouldn’t that make “she has earrings (on)” (so, has them on her body) and “she wears earrings” (on her body) completely synonymous?
I’m not so sure if that’s correct, but I’d say I’ve got my piercings in - I’d even say “she has her earrings in”. But again, no native speaker, so this might be just plain wrong :wink:

Oh, and I filled out the questionnaire - really interesting questions, I like to be forced to think in detail in philosophical topics :slight_smile:

1 Like
812

Confirmed, it doesn’t on mine :stuck_out_tongue:

2 Likes