Got a literal lol from me at breakfast.

And hey, you're one of a pretty small number of people in the world that can use "gas chromatographic" properly, so you got that going for you, which is nice.

looks like an autocorrect error to me; based on context, I bet they meant "reported."

Good clarification either way, though, especially since it dramatically changes the meaning of the sentence

You're definitely right; maybe someone like Dolly Parton would have been a better comparison, but even Dolly doesn't really capture his big Swift is.

Really, my first instinct was to go with Neil Young because he's one of my favorite artists of all time, and I do think that a lot of his biggest hits weren't really overly political, probably split about 50:50 even if we remember the more political stuff now. For every "Ohio" and "For What It's Worth," there's a "Heart of Gold" and "Helpless."

But really I'm splitting hairs because I like talking about music and playing the devil's advocate. Your initial point that Swift isn't known for writing protest music is absolutely correct.

Taylor Swift definitely has some political songs like "The Man," which is focused on the double standard faced by female celebrities, or "You Need to Calm Down," which is explicitly pro-LGBTQ+, etc.

I'm just pining for a better yesteryear that may have never actually existed.

I mean, Neil Young and Joan Baez were encouraging people to vote back in the 60's, so it's been at least 60 years that popular music has been closely involved in youth culture's voting habits

"Wait, it's all projection?"

🌎👨‍🚀🔫👨‍🚀

"Always has been"

In all honesty, I think it's likely a simple mistake.

The object that artists use to hold their paints is actually a third homophone, spelled palette.

It could be that the word choice was intentional and is referencing the character's bed, but I find it more likely that it was simply lost in translation from the original Japanese

That's just the synesthesia talking.

... But you're not wrong

It's always worthwhile to be self-aware and to be conscious of the parts of your personality that others might be annoyed by or take offense to. I'm not going to change that part of my personality just to please others, but I don't think it's annoying to acknowledge that others might not appreciate that part of who I am.

But hey, you do you. If being your authentic self means not caring about how your words affect the feelings of others, then that's just who you are, I guess.

blown out pallet palate

FTFY. A pallet is a small bed or an object used for carrying things, a palate is part of the mouth or one's ability to taste things. Pretty pedantic, I know, but I have this compulsion to correct misused homophones, so... Sorry? You're welcome? Either way, have a great day!

You seem unable to distinguish between nuance and pedantry, so it's unlikely that we will be able to have a productive conversation on a topic that revolves around nuance.

Have a nice day.

Fair. I could have been more accurate by saying "they are exhibiting behavior that has been reinforced by certain positive responses," but that's a little wordy.

Do all of us experience ennui for that matter? Envy, to the same level as one another?

As noted elsewhere, this is an ongoing philosophical discussion called The Problem of Other Minds. I'd link it, but since you can't be bothered to read the links already present, I don't think there's much point.

Which leads to a paradox of how one defines a conscious, human mind at all, if it were indeed based only on what emotions are present when presented with a similar stimulus.

You're missing the point that all humanity, collectively, as a species has largely the same senses, evolutionary history, and brain structure. Therefore, despite experiencing the emotions differently and to different extremes, we are mostly capable of experiencing the same emotions. Take away that shared brain structure and shared evolutionary history, and it's a very large, unfounded assumption to think that other species have the same emotions.

Further, I’m noticing that you’re focused on dancing around “are they human”, not “are they conscious”

No, I literally agreed with you that consciousness is a spectrum and that most life falls somewhere on that spectrum. Buy hey, go ahead and ignore that so you can build yourself a strawman. I never said anywhere that I eat meat, so you're just imagining things so you can build an argument against a statement I never made.

Do you think animals are capable of being curious, even when there’s no impetus for them to be? I certainly do.

This sentence right here is everything I need to know about your stance. You're either not willing to consider or able to understand that different species experience consciousness and emotion as an evolved trait, and when the evolutionary drivers are different, the emotions are different. Any species that evolves the ability to be curious will have done so because it's an evolutionary advantage, but if the evolutionary pressure and the senses and the literal brain structure is different, then the emotion of "curiosity" will be different. Assuming that other species experience curiosity the same way as humans is exceptionally close-minded.

You're not doing other species any favors by anthropomorphizing them; you're just limiting your own understanding.

No problem! I'm just glad my semi-obsessive reading of wikipedia is helping others, too

I believe you just hit upon what is called The Problem of Other Minds in philosophical terms

using names of human emotions instead can be a good approximation

It can be, but it can also be a gross misrepresentation. Outside of higher mammals, it seems safer to me to assume that their emotions are extremely dissimilar and human emotions are poor analogues at best.

My pets express themselves pretty clearly, despite having much more limited ability to communicate across species lines.

They express wants and needs, not emotions. Assuming that they have emotions that are the same as human emotions is anthropomorphization. They might have some analogous emotions, and boredom in a mammal might seem similar to human boredom, but where do you draw the line? Can a dog experience ennui? Can a cat experience a lack of fulfillment? Can a snake experience depression?

I feel reasonably confident in stating that I believe animals are conscious, just to varying depths.

I don't disagree, but you can't say that animals that evolved consciousness in completely different environments and with different senses and neurology would experience emotion in the same way as humans. Apes, sure, they are really close and probably the easiest argument for human emotions in non-human species, but other mammals get farther and farther from human experience and emotion, and it's presumptuous of humans to assume that they experience emotions the same way. Read "What Is It Like to Be a Bat" for some of the philosophical and scientific issues with assigning human emotions to other mammals.

And other intelligent animals that are further removed from humanity on the evolutionary chain would have even more alien emotions. Humans can feel empathy for an octopus or African Greys, but can either of those animals feel empathy for humans? What about curiosity? They seem curious, but how can we know if they experience curiosity that is anything like human curiosity?

But they are not human emotions, so to assign human emotions to animals is a misnomer.

This one is always a delight.

It's not "ironically named," it's misleadingly named. This bullshit is never on accident.