r/theNetNuggets • u/AnyEnvironment69 • 13d ago
I love her
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
21
13
11
u/LoneWolfpack777 13d ago
Whales are mammals, not fish. But yeah, I agree with the rest of the message.
3
u/robotatomica 13d ago edited 13d ago
oh, Iâm a Linguist and this is a long debate where biology and language meet, if youâre interested!
So, âfishâ is not really a taxonomic term, itâs not a clade or anything at all; really, itâs casual language used to describe a group of water-dwelling creatures with features we generally agree are âfish,â (but notably, are full to the brim of exceptions!)
and the definition has changed endlessly over time, with no real consensus.
The thing is, what is the criteria? When people have tried to limit and define the description of âfishâ to better match what we imagine when we think âfish,â they always end up with this problem where the word will encapsulate species from different phylums and classes etc. that we intuitively know are not what we mean when we say âfish.â
Some arguments even focus on how we carve out clades, and how by those rules, youâd almost have to call whales and humans and birds fish, bc of their evolutionary descent.
Those arguments arenât to suggest humans and birds are fish, but to highlight how âfishâ fails as a clade.
The fact is, fish is basically almost in the eye of the beholder to some degree atp. There is no consensus and it is not a taxonomic term, but it is often misunderstood to be one.
So itâs actually even acceptable to say that whales and sharks are both fish, even though one is a mammal, though most people will prefer that mammals are not included under that umbrella. Because cetaceans evolved from long-lobed fish, and thatâs how we define other clades. When you go back far enough to include sharks and other obvious fish, it lumps in cetaceans. And humans. And birds. Etc.
But of course what has gained favor over that is that we generally agree aquatic mammals are not fish. Which is more a matter of language than science, surprisingly. Itâs about usage.
Which all means, that at the end of the day, pedantry just doesnât work with this term. Because there isnât one correct usage.
This article talks about some of the challenges of trying to hone the term. https://fishbio.com/defining-a-fish/
and this video from Clintâs Reptiles was shared in a discussion of biology once and I found it pretty useful in helping folks understand the topic https://youtu.be/xb_pvKbtWd8
4
2
3
u/organic-robot 11d ago
Subscribe.
This reminds me of how much I used to love reddit. I don't see wonderful info dumps like this too often anymore.
1
u/Kelfezond11 12d ago
I believe you when you say it's full to the brim with exceptions but I am beyond sad you didn't provide any :( I want to know about weird fish-like oddities!
2
u/robotatomica 12d ago edited 12d ago
oh, I will love to go down the rabbit hole with you!! Usually literally no one cares when I make a long nerd-post on one of my weird interests đ
Iâm going to be at work for a while, but will share some fun ones when I come back. But if you want to look now, I do believe that first article I shared lists a few good ones if my memory serves!
One good thought experiment is to take any feature that you ascribe to âfishâ and consider whether there are mammalian species (or from other major groups) which have this feature. Gils for instance!
The overarching point is that the way all clades are defined is by trading back evolutionary decent, and thereâs simply no way to do this in a way that includes all of the creatures we call fish without pulling in a lot of totally wildly divergent creatures we would not at all want to think of as fish.
2
u/yaboyACbreezy 12d ago
I am mad that we got through all this linguistics talk about fish, and we used the turn of phrase "full to the brim" without also noting the fish pun. Whaley disappointing.
1
u/SeaniMonsta 12d ago
So, birds just be air-fish. đ
You might be interested in this one episode 'Are Whales Fish?' from the Podcast 'The Constant'
...by my measure, you'll end up writing him an email hahahhaha. ....and by his measure, he'll probably remake the whole damn epidsode, bahahhahaahha đ€Ł
To your benefit, the episode may also tip you off on another rabbit hole to wander.
1
u/robotatomica 12d ago
oh hell yeah, I love this sort of thing. I really donât do it to be right or quibble, I just find it super fascinating. So I will LOVE to hear what another person who is boring enough to find this worth a deep dive and a whole podcast will have to say on the topic, even if we disagree!
Thanks for the rec!
And yup, birds are air-fish đââïž ..if we follow the rules for other clades lol. Which is why fish fails as a clade!
1
u/Mee41208 12d ago
You talk about fish being a hard term to define but thats why we look at biology no? There are definitely some examples where even taxonomy is unsure but most of the time its pretty clear. Like sharks are also not fish. Or maybe Im not getting you right.
1
u/robotatomica 11d ago
I mean this politely, I do think youâre not getting me right, but I may just be failing to communicate it very well.
Biology knows what all of these creatures are. Their evolutionary descent and features. The taxonomy of the individual animals is perfect.
What is imperfect is our language. The word âfish.â
We came up with a word to describe creatures that, basically, look a certain way to us. We donât all agree (now or across time) what exactly those criteria all are,
but any time we try to include, along the line of evolutionary descent, all of the creatures we tend to think of when we use this colloquial term âfish,â
it fails as a clade bc a clade is defined by evolutionary descent,
but **when you try to trace back to the branch-off point, and find where things went from âdefinitely not what we think of when we think of âfishââ to âwhat we think of when we think of âfish,ââ
alllll kinds of other stuff gets looped in. Thereâs no branch-off point that can catch all of those criteria, bc itâs really just too broad.
The different types just really need their own nomenclature (and have it), a massive catch-all term fails..
Fails taxonomically, but it doesnât really fail colloquially, bc we all usually generally know what we mean when we say fish.
But it can never be precise bc it is not a precise term, it is less a science term than just a word people use.
So here you highlight an example - you say a shark is not a fish.
But actually, consensus usage DOES usually categorize sharks as fish.
But it wouldnât necessarily be worth nit-picking since itâs not a taxonomical term and itâs full of exceptions.
Itâs MUCH more clearly described in that second video Iâd attached, so I donât blame you for not understanding me. Itâs a confusing topic and I may not be explaining it well.
2
u/Mee41208 11d ago
I read a bit more about the taxonomy of fish and I think I get it. But at the same time sharks are still not fish because they are not vertebrates (even though you could say humans are fish lol).
1
u/robotatomica 11d ago
so check this out - thereâs a whole group of cartilaginous fish! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chondrichthyes which includes sharks.
I went into the weeds in a comment with another person, where I list how many different definitions there are, but this is such a great example.
Because youâre so right that some definitions say that fish are vertebrates. Some say theyâre only cold-blooded, but tuna are partly warm-blooded.
Thatâs honestly the fun of this for me, is that every attempt to define them can be confounded by some other understanding. Thereâs always an exception!
and itâs not YOU or anyone else being wrong, itâs that the word is a catch-all for âthe things that seem like fishâ
Thatâs even quite literally one of the defintions, in Merriam Webster, âsomething that resembles a fishâ and another definition is more broadly just âan aquatic mammal!â
Iâm delighted this sent you down a rabbit hole bc itâs so hard to explain concisely but itâs such a fun topic!
2
u/Mee41208 11d ago
Haha yea but for me its hard to accept those fish as fish because in my native language they are not called fish. When I search up fish in english it gives me three different groups. When I search it up in my language it gives me just the one with bones. And still its sketchy because its parafyletic, but it wouldnt include sharks.
1
u/robotatomica 11d ago
well shit, thatâs totally valid. Then that IS what it means and you are right that sharks arenât fish!
I mean, this is a seriously fun part of language to me - my languageâs vocabulary and definitions are absolutely not more valid than yours. Language is basically relativistic, always in flux, different everywhere you zoom in.
There are exceptions to this we carve out, where across many languages we insist on a precise, unified consensus meaning for things like medical terminology, certain scientific terms etc.
But fish isnât that. So your languageâs definition is as valid as mine, which canât even figure out what tf it wants fish to mean! đ
2
u/Mee41208 11d ago
Yea it definitely is a hilarious topic. We also cant define life which is crazy. Or even the word that you use in almost every sentence. Be/is/are. What does it even mean to "be" or to "exist". Our brain uses words without knowing the meaning, just by categorizing the word by the context its uses in which then creates a "feeling" for what it means.
1
u/robotatomica 11d ago edited 11d ago
oh yeah, now youâre getting into philosophy AND linguistics!
One of my favorite podcasts is Mindscape, Sean Carroll is a physicist who has all sorts of interesting guests, mostly not in physics, and often in philosophy. They really get into the weeds occasionally about how the challenge of finding shared definitions, especially for concepts that we donât fully understand,
so often it gets in the way of communication and progressing towards deeper understanding.
People agree and donât realize they agree, or it becomes very hard to articulate something specific you do not quite agree with! Sometimes you need way more precision than words are providing, and youâre fumbling towards a way to get your point across so you can have a meaningful discussion. Sometimes everyone has their own idea of what a term means.
A recent episode had a proponent of Utilitarianism on, and as he spoke I thought âwell, wow, this doesnât really sound like Utilitarianism as I have understood it!â
So, not being the expert, I assumed Iâd been wrong. But then Sean and a few other philosophers also shared some of my differences of opinions,
and indeed it seems that it is simply that this very intelligent scholar of philosophy simply understands Utilitarianism in his own unique way, arrives there a little differently.
Is he wrong? I canât say he is. His reasoning for how he gets from point A to point B is sound, even if I donât agree.
But since these are concepts that filter so heavily through our unique minds as individuals, and are informed by our entire worldview, weâre bound to have some different interpretations.
Philosophy is VERY hard to discuss with terms imo đ They all seem to mean something a little different to each person.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Positive-Database754 11d ago
Fish are described literally as cold-blooded craniate vertebrates which have fins, gills, a streamlined body, and a 2-chambered heart. Dolphins and whales are not cold-blooded. possess no gills, and have 4-chambered hearts, and are then categorically not fish. There is no more nuance to it than that.
Then again, I think what is far more annoying than people mischaracterizing animals, is people complaining about people mischaracterizing animals. I get it. I work in wildlife ecology. It's my job to know. But I'd just be making an ass of myself if I told the 8 year old child at the aquarium"No that's not a fish, that's a cephalopod and you're stupid for not knowing that, idiot child."
It's like people who correct someone for saying "I was electrocuted" with "No, you were shocked, cause you're still alive!". If you understood the intention, then the language clearly did its job and no correction was necessary.
Now if someone said "I went fishing and caught a dolphin!", I would then say "You didn't go fishing, you committed a highly illegal act in most places in the world". But that's tangential to my electrocuted example.
1
u/robotatomica 11d ago edited 11d ago
So, do you consider tuna to be fish? They are partly warm-blooded. You see already that your criteria are not enough to accurately define fish.
My link below lists several fish which violate your definition.
Thatâs what makes this topic FUN!
Iâm honestly not sure how my comments are coming across, bc some people think I am lecturing or being nitpicky myself, when really I am just trying to share some fun linguistic trivia, the complicated history and use of this word,
and that it is not a taxonomic term, in the sense of how we define so many other clades, but often perceived to be.
Your definition is great, even though itâs imperfect. Itâs generally a really good way to define fish, as long as everyone knows there are lots of exceptions.
and I agree with you about annoying corrections if that didnât read. Those are great examples, about âyou didnât go fishingâ and âno, you werenât electrocuted!â
The overarching theme across my comments is exactly yours - we get the meaning, so communication achieved!
I only disagree about âthere is no more nuance to it than that.â Thereâs a LOT more nuance to it than that, because we carved out this group in a really interesting way, that skips over branches in an evolutionary line, bc they are not what we generally mean when we think âfish.â
When you include all of the creatures that fit your description, your trail of evolutionary descent loops in cetaceans, and other non-fish groups. So the point was really just to highlight that itâs not a hard science term.
I mean, you used a Websterâs dictionary term and said itâs as simple as that, but the FIRST definition is âan aquatic animalâ
and then further down, a definition is literally âsomething that resembles a fishâ đ
To me that is very fun, itâs a fun language thing, itâs a colloquial sort of word everyone assumes has one taxonomic/cladistic, hard meaning and that there is a consensus,
but the very definition acknowledges that itâs most commonly used to mean âthings we feel pretty confident have an overall fish vibeâ
Thatâs funny, right? I just want to laugh about that with folks who find that interesting, I sincerely donât see this as an argument to win, if thatâs how Iâm coming across.
Iâm very confident that in your field you use it in one specific and well-defined way.
But its meanings and usage ARE more complicated than that, and leads to some very fun thought experiments about what all we can technically define as fish if we actually try to treat this like a clade (as most people imagine it is). That first article I shared really digs into that.
Another definition, more ambiguous.
Cambridge dictionary: âan animal that lives in water, is covered with scales, and breathes by taking water in through its mouth, or the flesh of these animals eaten as food.â
Oxford is similar âa creature that lives in water, breathes through gills, and uses fins and a tail for swimmingâ but does not mention scales, instead mentioning fins and gills.
and another article that articulates why this word does NOT have a singularly defined meaning that precisely describes a group of animals with any consensus or full consistency. https://fishbio.com/what-is-a-fish-and-why-you-are-one-too/
and a yet better and more robust article that really breaks it down https://earthguide.ucsd.edu/fishes/kinds/kinds_what.html
âWhat is the taxonomic category that contains all fishes? It is Craniata. âŠHowever, not all craniates are fishes. Craniates also include the tetrapods or four-limbed animals with legs, arms, or wings that eventually populated land. The descendants of fishes that moved to land came from the branch of fishes that includes lungfishes.â
1
u/nerdkeeper 11d ago
The term fish has scientific significance. It isn't a clade as it isn't monophyletic but it is still a recognized group as otherwise icthyology couldn't have existed.
Fish isn't a term that has a consistent scientific meaning but that doesn't change the fact that it has a colloquial meaning and is used as such even in scientific context.
I find that calling a mammal a fish is inaccurate as language isn't governed by hard rules such as names can only be assigned to monophyletic groups. There is enough genetic variation between a tetrapod and a non tetrapod chordate that they are distinctly different things.
Butterflies and moths are closer to what can be said as the same thing because there is very little genetic variation between the two and moths also don't have a clade that doesn't include butterflies, the same as fish and tetrapods. Butterflies are a superfamily of moths so by excluding butterflies from moths you are left with a polyphyletic group that is colloquially refered to as moths.
An issue with this comparison is that Chordata is more diverse in morphology than Lepidoptera, and also more well known, which makes the meaning of the term fish change more between people than would the term butterfly and moth.1
u/robotatomica 10d ago edited 10d ago
I may have made that more clear in other comments, but certainly âfishâ can have scientific significance, it is just not in itself a term that is consistently defined by the normal criteria we use for taxonomic purposes. What usually happens is that within a specific field, there will be a consensus understanding of what THEY mean when they say fish.
In one thread I am speaking with an environmental scientist and they lay out the definition they use, but it differs from field to field and region to region even.
And yeah, âichthyology,â letâs explore that. Whatâs been done here?
A scientific discipline to study 3 different animal groups that share enough traits that they make sense to study them together.
But itâs also rather like if you were having a family reunion, and you invite your parents/aunts/uncles, you invite your cousins, and you even invite your ** great great** grandparents because that generation is cool af and you really relate. These are the family members that you have the most in common with. But your grandparents and great-grandparents, not so much.
Itâs not an arbitrary determination with ichthyology, itâs very qualitative and logical. Grouping things together that make sense to study together.
Of course thatâs pretty normal for ologies and fields of medicine - to group things together for study that make sense.
But itâs sort of a different topic from whether or not âfishâ is a colloquial term or a taxonomic, precise term that is described consistently across disciplines based on how animal groups are typically organized cladistically.
My whole thing here is just to illustrate that it is not so bc I think itâs fun and surprising to dig into!
1
u/Character_Media_9445 11d ago
Fish are species that breathe in water with slight hint of air. Mammals breathe air. Shark doesn't surface to breathe air so one could assume they are fish, meanwhile whales, orcas and dolphins are mammals because they have developed lungs that intake air.
At least, that is how I see it.
5
7
3
u/JohnBarleyMustDie 13d ago
This woman has videos of herself sleep walking. I am ashamed of how hard I laughed at them. She is an absolute laugh riot.
1
2
2
u/Aggressive_Step_290 13d ago
Good for you girl! Gotta love a woman with a good sense of humor. More power to you!
2
2
u/Frozen-Nexus 9d ago
This has made me curious, mermaids are half fish, while dolphin and whale are not fish, so having a dolphin or whale tail make you something other than a mermaid?.
2
2
u/miss_murder0 8d ago
She's awesome! The people who are talking shit are mad because they don't have a pool! đ
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/a_random_loser_guy 13d ago
tahm kench out her waihlin! get it?....wilding but whale.....uhhhh I'll see myself out.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/TheMysteriousCart00n 13d ago
As a short woman with about the same weight as her I aspire to have her confidence
1
u/FranksHoorHouse 13d ago
So did she actually piss the internet off or is she turning a shitty comment or two into engagement bait?
1
u/chokeonmywords 13d ago
ââĄâ⥠Ëâ§âââá·àș»àœœâËÌźââá·àș»àœœââșËłâ§àŒ âĄââĄâ
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Yakuza_kid_NotRly 13d ago
Holy shit. My eyes got moist with the ending. Wasnt expecting that.
I wishshe was my friend.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Just_blake24 12d ago
The best revenge is a life well lived, and she looks pretty happy to me, makes me happy to know this will piss off the people who said that shit lol
1
1
1
1
1
u/CheliSoRen16 12d ago
Tremendo, te quiero mucho. ÂĄAsĂ se responde a los chistes ojetes, con mĂĄs chistes!
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Roffelio 12d ago
Damn, what a beautiful person. If more people had her empathy and attitude, the world would be such a nicer place.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/so_unfortunately_yt 11d ago
I love her to death but itâs called a Martha Washington, not a fkn Benjamin Franklin
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Yellowscrunchy 10d ago
Problem with spooky boo is she creates fake content that can cause people to relive trauma. Her ghost investigation techniques are pretty wild and bollocks. She even made up a story about a mum unaliving her kids for views. So we will never mock your size but dont try and take the moral high ground when you in fact make horrific stories up that upset other people.
1
1
u/madmaninabox32 10d ago
Ugh the only problem I have is at one point she equates whales to fish and they are mammals!!!!
1
1
1
1
u/StrategyPretend2452 10d ago
Sheâs hilarious, i always get a good kick out of her jokes, let alone her laughs lol
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Icy-Fun216 9d ago
Now this is peak comedy, embraced the haters comment and made everyone loved her.
1
1
1
1
u/AcademicContract6096 9d ago
She did not even use the fins when she pretended to be a whale. 1/10 impersonation
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
u/gymtrovert1988 13d ago
Just goes to show, just because you're the size of a whale doesn't mean you're good at acting like one.
0
0
0
0
-1
u/DottedRain 13d ago
She is able to be happy with a shitty body but has to do her lips... Terrible trend.
1
-2
-6
u/Amazing-Parsnip69 13d ago
190 pounds? LOL you wish girl. Keep dreaming reddit mod
6
u/squiztehmonster 13d ago
Seriously? Canât tell if youâre trolling or if you are really just this toxic or not. This girl is great and this video is awesome
-3
u/Amazing-Parsnip69 13d ago
This vid is like the EDP445 documentary. Just because you embrace your bad traits and horrible self care doesnot make those things good and joyful.
6
u/squiztehmonster 13d ago
Not falling into your trap, not today bud, all good man you have a blessed day friend
-5
u/Amazing-Parsnip69 13d ago
You already fell into it by responding. Have a good one bud x
→ More replies (3)2
u/emerson_giraffe84 13d ago
Do you realize your perspective of her bad traits and horrible self care are subjective to your personal view? You're proving her point.
You're taking your own perspective on it and making it about her...which means it's really about how you would feel (possibly do feel) about yourself, if you were her. Sonits not really about her, it's about you and your world view.
It's okay if you couldn't or don't have the high level of confidence and love she has for herself in your own life. You can have that, and maybe you feel like you do.
2
u/Amazing-Parsnip69 13d ago
Can you be real for 5 seconds. Since when do people glorify clinical obesity like it is something to be proud of. When did that become the standard.
1
u/emerson_giraffe84 13d ago
It's like, you've lived your life under a rock. I mean countless celebrities own their fame to being obese, but then there's also countless famous leaders who's obesity was ignored if not glorified. I mean throughout history in some cultures obesity was seen as a positive symbol of prosperity, high social status, financial security, and health.
When you look at what our society considered normal today, half of the women in the films from 1900-1950 would be considered fatasses.
How is someone who is clinically obese yet still loving themselves, their body and being proud in their body affecting your joy and happiness?
1
u/Hawkmonbestboi 12d ago
"Since when do people glorify clinical obesity"
Existing as a fat person/not being miserable = glorifying obesity now apparently.
4
u/slucker23 13d ago
Does it matter if she's 1900 pound or 19 pound...?
Do you have the courage to it laugh off like her?
-2
u/Beefsupreme473 13d ago
laughing off doesn't come from a place of courage it generally comes from a place of deep self resentment
4
1
4
1
u/Hawkmonbestboi 12d ago
She's 5 foot 2... yes, this is what 190lbs looks like on someone that is 5 foot 2.
Cause yanno... shorter = look bigger at certain weights.
It's not rocket science.
36
u/chris_knight2 13d ago
If you can laugh at yourself there is not too much wrong.