Odd, Superbad is the only movie I’ve ever seen twice (or more) in the theaters.

I saw it and thought it was the funniest movie I’d ever seen, then a couple weeks later my buddy wanted to see a movie so I saw it a second time with him. No regrets.

Good to know we can just “teach” any imaginary thing we want. It sounds like it’d be neat? Fuck it, let’s teach it.

I know a girl who thinks of ghosts. She’ll make you breakfast; she’ll make you toast. But she don’t use butter. And she don’t use cheese. She don’t use jelly, or any of these.

She uses Vaseline.

Vaseline.

Vaseline.

… you are correct that if I’m unfamiliar with your terminology, I will not know what you mean.

You are incorrect that if I understand the definition of a “partial Kundalini awakening” I will not have a shared understanding. I can’t imagine why that would be true.

If by spiritual you mean “hurt my teeth” then sometimes eating ice cream is spiritual for me.

Otherwise, I’m not sure what spiritual means, as I said.

I also agree, because we all pretty much understand what “happy” means.

No one seems to understand what “spiritual” means with any definition, and hence we shouldn’t just be using it like we do, in my opinion.

Apparently for you it means “gives you perspective into your own insignificance”, when I think for many people it, instead, means, “offers evidence for God or at least for the supernatural, in a non-spooky way”.

So… it’s a good way to get a group of people all talking about different things and feeling like they’re agreeing about things they don’t necessary agree by means of an equivocation fallacy.

Thanks. Respectfully, though, it sounds like you are saying it’s OK to take an event that happened to you and arbitrarily decide that it’s going to be called “spiritual” without knowing what that means?

And then other people can take their own definitions that might be different, and read your story and be like, “Oh, I understand what this person means,” without actually knowing… potentially adding or removing their own meanings to it (the implication of the existence of a dirty, say) when that wasn’t part of the original person’s construct?

Because if that’s right, I don’t think I can go for that.

One cannot have a “spiritual” experience without having a shared definition of spiritual that isn’t just a deepity.

I would urge anyone who wants to share their “spiritual” experience to give a solid definition for the term first.

You should not.

Multiple Lemmy instances exist so that a single entity cannot control everything that happens across the federated Lemmyverse. Each instance can make its own rules.

As it stands there are more than enough instances, I believe with differing policies and rules. As such, you should not start a Lemmy instance.