wordcraeft

If you want to look at a fun language that relies far more heavily on context than English, search for Toki Pona. It's a neat "toy" language!

There are also influencers who care only about themselves, like those who like to stomp around in other people's gardens without permission in order to get a "good photo" for their followers.

The article barely touches on fish. It suggests fish, eggs, and dairy are mostly fine, but doesn't explicitly say that.

We're using the word "influencer" differently here. You're using it the literal way - "one who influences." The version I'm using is narrower in scope.

But if you insist on using your terminology, then I'll refer to them not as "influencers" but rather "social media attention whores." Does that make you feel better?

This is the way.

Perhaps this is an argument over semantics, rather than anything substantive.

When I say "influencer," I'm referring to a class of people whose lives revolve around producing performative content on social media that does not meaningfully add to society.

Journalists and influencers are two very different things, friend. Any jackass with a YouTube channel or Instagram account can be an influencer. Journalism requires education, investigative and literary skill, and vetting.

On a cosmic scale, the survival even of this entire star system doesn't matter in the slightest.

But to me, personally, I am rather unnerved by current events.

Context is everything. We do not experience life as the cosmos, we experience it as individuals.

I wonder how many people out there are like me and don't follow influencers at all. If anything, I consider influencers a net negative on society.

What's the comparative energy usage for the production process?