If you attack (censor/demonize) people for saying itsoktobeblank, you are contributing to their radicalization.
By excluding them from the conversation, you are forcing them into a toxic echo-chamber.
If you are unable to acknowledge that you can agree with some points a person makes while disagreeing with other points a person makes, instead of accepting or rejecting them WHOLESALE, then you are no longer a skeptical-free-thinker, and you are instead an insular "arbiter of truth" advocating censorship of people and or ideas you happen to disagree with.
Click to watch (reasonable) counter-argument,
I SAID IT FIRST.
I watch this once a day - Click to watch 3 minutes,
At what point did we begin to conflate MONEY with MORALITY?
NEVER TALK TO THE POLICE OR A JUDGE, THEY CAN LEGALLY LIE TO YOU
NEVER CONVICT PEOPLE CHARGED WITH LAWS YOU DISAGREE WITH
Perhaps anarchy already exists and "THE COMMUNITY" is merely the highest manifestation of organized crime. – special thanks to @thoughts-in-time
I'm afraid that rights are mostly granted by mob democracy. A man's right to life and liberty can be taken away by any group larger, better armed and/or better organized than his. The mechanism is and always has been concerned citizens fighting against the status quo for the betterment of the status quo.
Essential HIVE links,
https://hive.vote/
https://beeme.icu/?account=logiczombie
https://hiveblocks.com/@logiczombie
I WILL UPVOTE ANY AND ALL COMMENTS ON THIS POST, 1 UPVOTE PER ACCOUNT. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO LEAVE A "∴"
Copyright notice: Feel free to copy and paste any LOGICZOMBIE original content (posts and or comments and or replies and logiczombie logo, excluding quoted 3rd party content of course) according to copyleft principles (creative commons zero). In fact, I would prefer that you don't give me "credit" and simply post any choice quotes as your own (to mitigate the genetic fallacy). Sort of a "Creative Commons (-1)".
ZOMBIEBASICTRAINING
+proHUMAN +proFAMILY
Your scathing critique is requested.
Further elaboration on 'easy to attack'
So the Alt-Right uses 'soy boys' do they? YOu know that term was around far longer than the Alt Right? Well now, the 'danger' of soy has become as ridiculous as "Gay Frogs" to the opposite 'side' the 'Alt-Left'. Even though the claims are quite based in fact, they are deemed ridiculous, because of who delivered the messages.
This happens with just about everything. The Dichotomy of the Left/Right paradigm. My 'side' vs yours. My 'Team' vs yours. My 'politician' vs yours. My country vs yours.....Etched into the psyche of everyone. When the 'other side' claims something, the side against them will dismiss those claims, even if true.
Gay Frogs
Easy to dismiss with a ranting lunatic screaming GAY FROGS isn't it? So no-one believes that shit do they! I mean "GAY" Frogs???
Too bad he didn't say "TRANS FROGS"!!
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100301151927.htm
So the shills have successfully gotten folks to not pay attention to their poison water, because of a screaming doofus...and a plethora of comedic material to go with it:
PROTECTING THE COMMONS (AIR, WATER, SOIL) SHOULD BE A FUNDAMENTAL PRIORITY.
Indeed. Hence the Soy boy references....Friends don't let friends 'western Soy'. Else we usher in the 'Weak "man"' era...
Poe's Law.
Perhaps the Cycle is inevitable in this System..
-Good Times Create Weak Men-
Excessive hoarding must lead to heavy loss
Knowing contentment avoids disgrace
Knowing when to stop avoids danger
Thus one can endure indefinitely
^^ Wisdom
thank you very much for the post,have a good week
The "Alt-Right" and "Alt-Left" in a nutshell
The Alt-Right is made up of a bunch of Shilly Agents who say and do stupid things, mixing in some Truth, with a bunch of easy to attack idiocy. This ensures that those 'opposed' will have plenty of 'ammo' to dismiss the Truths, along with the bullshit, as they throw the baby out with the bathwater, and Label any that ascribe to ANY part of that narrative as 'Alt-Right' (easily dismissed).
The Alt Right is full of Zionists. Shilly liars that are there to make Logic look evil or 'stupid' with a plethora of contortions that are designed to keep all 'sides' confused.
"Can Agree". Sure you can agree on 'some' things. If that is your GOAL! What if you were trying to find a 'deal breaker' for an 'officer/employee' that you were about to appoint? What if you needed to find that ONE THING that disqualifies them for what you needed?
Example:
I am recruiting for a position, but there are some deal breakers that will disqualify candidates. I 'test' them. They say one of the deal breakers and I have now outright disqualified/rejected them WHOLESALE. Free thinker or not, I did not care to find anything further that we 'agree' upon.
Example 2: Having a discussion with someone that lies. I know they lie. I know they are lying to me right now. We did just 'agree' on something previously, but that isn't stopping my gut from telling me to start rejecting them wholesale, due to the uneasy feeling that everything being said, could be a lie.
I see the point you want to make though!
Hi @oldoneeye,
interesting conversation.
I did not understand the dealbreaker, which may be because English is not my native language. I find the second example quite interesting:
Your gut feeling that someone else is lying may be right. But that does not mean that the other person also knows that he or she is lying. People often lie without being aware of it. If someone is very disinterested in a conversation - or the opposite, very doggedly - superficiality on the one hand, and doggedness on the other, can lead to the lie not being noticed. One just babbles something along or, in inner rage, simply reaches for the next available thought. Some lies come with speed and it's then to shameful to put them back into the mouth, ... people prefer to stay to their first story.
Perhaps you perceive this form of too lax and too much tension in the other person? I often feel this way with my brother, I know exactly what he is saying is totally out of the air, in his case it is rather wishful thinking, but what he presents as fact. It used to annoy the hell out of me until I began to get to know myself better and realized that I was doing the same thing and - if I am not careful - I am still doing it.
I think if you can read body language really well, then you can recognize a deliberate lie, one with intent, by the fact that the liar gives small telltale signs, which you have learned to interpret when you are trained in such things.
But I would say that such a thing is rather unusual. A premeditated liar only appears in my perception when this person either feels cornered because something is too uncomfortable for him to express truthfully or the person he is with causes the uncomfortable feeling in him. Usually, it is most likely to occur where one steps in front of a camera or microphone, i.e. in the media space. Politics and related businesses, the most.
I think that most lies are lies, which are mainly based on one's own convictions, but which one does not recognize as such towards oneself. Because what you want to believe in, you simply make it fit for you, without figuring it out.
Here we can drill down further on my point as well. You do not have to 'be careful'. You don't have to 'try' to 'not lie'. You simply to not put forth any information which you cannot prove, as 'fact', or 'truth'. This is the muddy water we are in now as a species. We Tolerate, LIES. Intention does not matter. All one has to do, is stop regurgitating the things they hear, as 'the truth'. It is perfectly ok to say "I am not sure", or "I heard this, but have not verified". If this is not ok for someone to say to themselves, then they have an underlying personality issue, which is not Virtuous. They need to work on their 'Self' first an foremost, and thus, I DISMISS them as 'Not Credible', until such time as I have seen (if ever) that individual take the steps necessary to toss their Ego aside for a moment, and let LOGOS prevail.
If one 'spreads' a lie not knowing, then they should not have spread that lie should they? Why did they spread it?? Why did they not validate their claim first? Why, murder part of the world with another lie? What keeps Lies continuing?
I spread this message as a Truth, because, it 'is'. The 'thing' 'is'.
Nature itself demonstrates. Intention matters not to Truth. We can be nice and we can 'Tolerate', but I agree with Aristotle "tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society"
This is a good conversation though :)
So if I talk to you and let you know that I am not flawless, about me believing something that I believe to be true that you believe to be false, and I am supposed to prove my truth to you even though it is my conviction, we have a problem. Something that I cannot recognize as a lie in myself, I would not admit it as such. In this context, we can no longer talk about truth and lie, but about our worldview that we have adopted in the course of our lives. It is impossible to give you proofs of my world-view or facts, for you will dismiss them and call them inferior.
Very well, however, we can agree that a plain and deliberate lie, which I am actually able to recognize as such in myself when I am about to speak it, and which harms another, must be regarded as to be refrained from.
But precisely because I know that I have lied in my life, out of insecurity, spontaneous anger, carelessness, etc., I cannot throw the first stone at you. If it were as simple as you say, that everyone immediately and without doubt recognizes an unproven information as a lie, we would have a beautiful world.
How am I supposed to recognize you as a serious interlocutor if you don't take your own weakness into consideration - having lied and being carried away in time - spreading information for which you have no proof?You've never ever done that?
It would be as if you were claiming to be without fault. That would be a lie, wouldn't it?
Aristotle said something I can agree with (except that I understand "tolerance" as something positive not negative), just as one can agree with Heinz von Förster, for example, who titled: "Truth is the invention of a liar."
If you have produced proof and counter-proof to the end of all days, and you are still in dispute with the one with whom you are having this draining argument, then you will recognize on this profound bottom that, finally and irrevocably, all conversations come down to your world view, for which there is no ultimate proof. It's an experience we've all made, haven't we?
The so-called proof is merely a generally accepted varnish for the concept of truth. The camouflage, for example, is called "science" and is itself the highest instance, but we suspect that it cannot be so high because it may be knowledge, but not wisdom.
Therefore I laugh with you, since I revealed to you my faultiness, which you immediately use against me, and point out to me that the attempt not to lie is ridiculous. No, it is not a cheap attempt, but a self-view which, if I can master it, is to save me from my own lies. I cannot save you from yours, that much should be clear.
Having said all this, I go along with the fact that ignorance, vanity, greed and pain cause people to cause suffering to others. Undoubtedly. Since I cannot meet all these people, not being in real contact with them, I can only lead my tangible human encounters to the extent that I want to follow the universally accepted rules.
Yes, a good conversation I always am interested in. :)
Well stated.
Yes, I try to skip over and look past what might seem like "lies" and try to focus more on the "why".
Why would someone think that. Why would someone say that? Do they logically follow the same principles when faced with similar, but perhaps less emotionally charged hypotheticals?
For example, children will lie if they are afraid.
Remove threats if you seek the truth.
Having said all what I said within the above dialogue, I can also say that I am an honest person. I never lie about simple facts like "I am late because of traffic" when I was actually late because I did not take care of the time. I never do that. When I am having a meeting with a friend and I realize that I became too tired to make it to this meeting, I call the friend and tell him that I won't come because of the true reason. And not saying "I am having a headache" or something of that sort. Mostly, I will go, even though I am tired and never mention it.
So, maybe, the above dialogue wasn't about lies but about convictions. When someone is convinced of something different from what I am convinced of, nobody of us can call each other a liar. It then is a different perspective and also a chosen will on that matter.
In that case I would use what you do:
Yes, always a good start to take a less emotional example and talk about it.
And also yes, children do lie when they are anxious.
Because, after all, when they make the experience that telling the truth often produces more trouble for them than they would have expected.
Well stated.
Here's perhaps something we see differently.
An actual, intentional, provably false statement or claim is EXTREMELY RARE.
Colloquially, most of what we call "lies" are sloppy logic that unintentionally conflates facts and opinions and is sometimes a bit too eager to leap to conclusions.
I spot these all the time.
I never hold it against the speaker "personally".
That would kinda be like blaming someone for speaking Portuguese.
That's just how they learned to speak.
I know we disagree here. Because much of what you have just said, does not compute to me.
Then your definition of EXTREMELY RARE, is vastly different than mine. Any news cast, political theater, fake science, is FULL of outright, intentional, provably false, LIES, and ANY OF THOSE THAT SPREAD those LIES, are doing so WILLINGLY. IGNORANCE is no excuse, when you CLAIM something to be TRUE! If you have not proven so yourself, or witnessed the 'proof' then CLAIMING something as TRUE, is a massive flaw. Just because one 'heard' something, does not make it a truth. Therefore claims from ignorance, are WILLFUL lies, if they are not Truth. One must follow with the disclaimer that 'this may not be truth' if one is to adhere an Ignorance claim to themselves after being proven incorrect.
Prime example:
"Vaccines are safe and effective"
Only a LIAR would say such. Only an Idiot Liar would repeat such, without proof.
Talking heads and pundits and people who trust them are mostly well-intentioned individuals who have fallen prey to MOBSTER CON-ARTISTS.
Most of us have been (primed) programmed (brainwashed) to be vulnerable to HERO-WORSHIP and APPEALS TO AUTHORITY.
A victim of this (covert) manipulation is not "evil".
A victim of this (covert) manipulation is not "intentionally deceiving others".
A victim of this (covert) manipulation is not "incurably stupid".
Most of these people are simply deceived themselves.
For example, if you met a skilled scientist or doctor who mentioned they also happened to be a Chri.sti.an (or Sc.ientol.ogist), would you instantly dismiss them as feeble-minded?
Ok, but you are ignoring my point in attempt to create an endless/forever 'Victim'.
Ever heard "The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions"? There is a reason for that. Intention != TRUTH/LOGOS
I disagree. Choosing to 'Believe' with 'Faith' is a DANGEROUS path and the bearer must be held responsible for being willfully STUPID. STUPID = believing(as true) that which is possibly not True, even if you have good intentions. I do engage in willful stupidity though, but I do not declare my stupidity as Truth/Logos.
Again, INTENTION does not matter to the Truth.
That is correct. That is, the KEY. CURE the Stupidity = Advance above protozoa.
They do not have to choose that. They can instead, be Vigilant. Certain 'Races' "Trust" more than others. Which is again, to their benefit and doom.
I agree 100%.
But I believe "hell" in that metaphor is a reference to "undesirable consequences", not so much a moral or supernatural state.
You forgot to continue and tell us what happens after "undesirable consequences". One such possible being, a 'Hell'. "hell on Earth", "Dark Ages", "Spiritual Death", etc..
Specific Qualifiers and Disqualifiers are part of the definition of any position or office.
The only question here is whether or not the Qualifiers and Disqualifiers are essential, and job specific, or do they dip into non-job related personal opinions and beliefs?
I intentionally dip it into my personal opinions. My 'time' is now valuable to me. I don't like to 'waste' it anymore on 'movies' that I have already seen a thousand times...
Time,,, is a great Teacher, that eventually kills all of it's students.
Being bored with someone is the best possible reason to ignore them.
But it would seem to be a strange reason to spend the effort required to make them a pariah.
Ignoring someone can be considered one of the highest forms of insult though. Use Finesse, unless you wish to lose Virtue.
LIARS should be Pariah. <-- my fix to the world. The ancients had it right, until they didn't.
Here's my question.
(IFF) I'm honestly mistaken about some point of fact (THEN) do I deserve to be pilloried?
'honestly mistaken'
How were you 'mistaken'? How did you arrive at declaring something as fact, when it was not? Why did you choose to not instead say 'evidence suggests that...'? So, yes, you would deserve to Pillory yourself, and if you did not do that, then you would deserve to be pilloried by COMMUNITY. If the community was 'healthy' that is. An unhealthy community would 'Tolerate' your lack of self-pillory.
In such pillory, you can of course, avoid the abuse, and focus on metaphorically 'ridiculing' the 'error' that caused you to unknowingly choose to Lie. All the while, the Lie could have been avoided simply by being 'not sure', or 'requiring further evidence'.
What is Truth?
Stand on your roof, drop a rock, it falls to the ground. Truth.
Example 2: Having a discussion with someone that lies. I know they lie. I know they are lying to me right now. We did just 'agree' on something previously, but that isn't stopping my gut from telling me to start rejecting them wholesale, due to the uneasy feeling that everything being said, could be a lie.
I don't love that video, although I have learned a bit from it. At this point, I fear SJW thought more than alt-right thought, and I have been registered Democrat for 47 years. Alt-right seem to support diversity of thought, whereas SJW wants us all to think and feel alike. I had to stop there, 18 minutes in. He is annoying me.
Seems to me the toxic echo chambers won't admit anyone who is not part of the echo. I get onto leftists' threads with my stray thoughts, and am ridiculed, belittled, treated as a heretic.
I am unclear what your intent is with this post.
I'm trying to point out the advantages of NOT ridiculing people.
Everybody thinks the "other side" is in a bubble or echo-chamber.
And they don't see their own bubble.
I don't think it's "impossible" to question someone's belief, no matter how ridiculous you might think it is, WITHOUT ridiculing them or rejecting them WHOLESALE.
In-fact that seems to be the very FOUNDATION of "religious tolerance".
I mean, is "flat-earth" any more "crazy" than "magic-sky-daddy"?
I mean, isn't it a little weird that it's ok to hate sci.entol.ogists but not ok to hate J.ews?
Who gets to say who gets to hate who? Where's the logical symmetry?
Thanks for clarifying, totally agree then! We are being channeled into sameness.
It's easier to hate scientologists because they are fewer in number than the Jews. Both are just people trying to find structures to live by that aren't houses of cards.
Many of us have delegated the choosing of who to hate to secondary sources, such as SPLC, ADL, and the DNC. I consider all three of these to be hate groups themselves. It's been easy to show that the Proud Boys, for instance, are closer to the Elks Club than to a white supremacist militia, but the SPLC says that's what they are, so 60 million people believe that too. Very scary times!
Yep.
Although they were very likely "well-intentioned" when they were formed, any "authority" that dictates "who you are allowed to hate" devolves into DOGMA and PRIESTHOOD (capricious tyranny).
Like these guys (4 minutes and 56 seconds),