Some people talk about what they've seen but most talk about what they've heard. It sounds the same but it's a big difference.

Comments

• cloudless@piefed.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  I have yet to hear a ghost story from someone who actually have seen a ghost.

  They all have heard other people seeing a ghost.

  source

  • frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    I have met people. I still need more proof of ghosts than “we all saw something we couldn’t explain”.

    source
  • TranquilTurbulence@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Let alone someone touching the ghost.

    source
  • entropicdrift@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Come to Pennsylvania, we have tons of alleged ghost sightings. I’ve met several people who claim to have seen ghosts.

    source
• generallynonsensical@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  My grandfather always said, “Believe half of what you see, and none of what you hear”. I thought it was stupid when I was younger but holy jebus does it ring true these days.

  source

  • DominatorX1@thelemmy.club ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Heck yes but. Seeing is better but hearing is more efficient. Like, it takes less energy, portable, transmittible.

    So inevitably the hearing is gonna win. You’re gonaa have this hige mass of people connected by hearing. And this relatively little bunch of people who sensibly stick with seeing, looking around going wtf.

    source
• ArgumentativeMonotheist@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Seen and thought, yeah, it should be that, ideally. Holding opinions simply because he or she said so is a very dangerous way to live!

  source

  • DominatorX1@thelemmy.club ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Not to be a negative nelly but that’s like the whole internet. Our whole nodern culture even.

    source