Did you mean nitwit? I've never heard or seen the word midwit.

Where there's a whip, there's a way.

My question is if they're all straight do the two remaining guys both get the money?

You may be one of those rare individuals that can care about everyone the same as you would your closest friends and family. I don't know. Most of us though are not. So I call out crap like this^ occasionally. If there was ever a tweet that gets made into a meme being racist against non-whites I hope I'd do the same. But it's very unlikely that it will ever show up here. Instead your comment makes you look like you see yourself as sitting on a high horse and how dare someone say something in this area that's not me. I hope that was not your intent and that you don't see yourself as better than the rest of us. Just one more person trying to make the world a better place and maybe have some fun along the way.

There are rare individuals that empathize at that level but everyone else? No we don't. Why? Because it is a psychological trait inherent in humans to take a offense when an "other" purposely insults us. We are less insulted to hugely varying degrees when the object of the insult is towards "others". Yes, most of us can ideologically recognize that it is an insult and given a set of moral beliefs generally condemn such behavior. But it will never impact us the same as the insulted "group". The greater the degree of separation between ourselves and the insult or act the less we feel about it. The closer the more. Here's an example: Myanmar's government actively tries to eradicate other ethnic groups. When was the last time you saw this on the news. Why? Because it doesn't hit close to home and yet it's still racism. Still the same issue just on the opposite side of the world.

@karlboll First, there is no such thing as a non-pathetic racist but when was the last time someone tweeted something inherently racist about a black person? I'm sure it happens but when it does the tweet gets removed and they get banned. It certainly doesn't end up a meme. Second, this isn't a stereotype. A stereotype is something that can reasonably said to be a trait of a specific large group while also not generally exhibited by other groups. I doubt there is any statistical data that would or even could show white people walk in the rain more than black people. Truthfully, given climate and population density this would be more likely for asians. Thirdly, do you ask black people if they get as offended by this as they do when they're the target of racism? No, you don't. And it doesn't even matter do you know why? Because the truthful answer is going to be no.

"I think therefore I am" huh? Interesting that we can still come back to that phrase all these millennia later. One of my favorite scifi book series is Troy Rising. In the series the mc is talking with an AI where the AI explains how knowledge works. It's something along the lines of "there are things we know, things we know we don't know and things we don't know we don't know." Now they added another one for the AI "things we know but can't know" meaning the AIs know they know something but aren't allowed to access that information. Anytime I get going on a thought exercise I'm always reminded of the first bit with the things we don't know we don't know. You can drive yourself mad trying to ponder that one, and yet isn't it such fun?

it already exists in all the coordinates it will ever exist in. This means if we're "traveling" in a perceived direction and we shine light behind us it can't ever be reflected back or vice versa if we do see a reflection is should have been perceivable in front of us before it was reflected. Just the mere fact that light's speed can't actually be measured one way disproves this. Of course this also means that because light's speed can be measured by it's reflection also disproves this. Is an interesting concept though. In fact it's been used in scifi before too. DS9 used it for the wormhole aliens. They perceived time not as linear but as a whole and decisions were made based on the outcomes achieved before the act was ever done.

The time thing is interesting but it fails the non-perception test. It's similar in concept to those that exclaim reality is purely what we perceive and not on it's own a fact. The easiest way I've come to describe it is with death. Specifically those that die from things that happen too quickly to for them to realize they are going to die. In those cases they don't perceive anything and they still die or turn into goo or dust. The same is similar with the all at once theory. If time and space are related so that a coordinate in time is the same as a space then there should be several things happening at once. Instead of actually moving in the form of waives or particles everything should be lines. This is close-ish to string theory but not really. Second would be that if you ever did actually travel to another coordinate since time and space are the same whatever existed there would always exist there without beginning or end. Thirdly light or a moving object can't actually move since