Uuuuuuugh, “I don’t like this source” is easily one of my least favorite responses; the respondent may as well not even post since they’re ignoring the content anyway. Yes, the Wall Street Journal is puke, but nobody lies 100% of the time. That’s why you need to learn how to read critically.
There has to be some sort of course that people can take to teach them how to properly scrutinize sources and distinguish between good reporting and rumourmongering, rather than trying to take shortcuts like that.
And what’s up with all of the repetitive definitions and attempts to accuse you of being logically fallacious? It doesn’t make the replier look clever; it’s just extremely embarrassing.
I had a philosophy professor years ago who said that people who make catalogues of logical fallacies don't really understand logic. The true logician simply examines the argument, notes that it doesn't follow, and tells you why without using any jargon.
Being on the internet has convinced me this guy was completely correct.
Philosophy has a tendency to need to use very specialized language to avoid problems of ambiguity and to precisely identify concepts that have no reason to come up in the vast, vast majority of conversation among laypeople.
Yeah, but seriously what's even the point of such wisdom, especially when it can led people into things like subjective idealism. Or maybe it's because idealists needs to reach insane levels of abstraction to even explain their idiotic ideas.
Probably a certain amount of specialized terminology is neccesary, and the complete lack of it, as in (say) Nietzsche, doesn't always signify a profound thinker. But I agree with you that most contemporary philosophers use jargon simply to obscure.
I mean, from what i see Nietzsche key to popularity was precisely the fact he's understandable, because he mostly just rambled, but laymen at least can tell what he meant.
Liberals are basically a cult at this point, I honestly don't think it's possible to engage with them in a meaningful way. They've basically constructed a narrative regarding how the world works, and anything that doesn't fit into that narrative gets discarded. Amusingly, libs are able to recognize this behavior in other cults like qanon, but are not able to apply the same analysis to themselves.
I suspect it's going to take a crisis that affect these people in a tangible material way for them to start questioning their beliefs and examining things in a critical fashion.
And the types of replies in that thread are basically a learned behavior where libs just dismiss things they don't want to hear and expect the rest of the libs to pile on to downvote.
Uuuuuuugh, “I don’t like this source” is easily one of my least favorite responses; the respondent may as well not even post since they’re ignoring the content anyway. Yes, the Wall Street Journal is puke, but nobody lies 100% of the time. That’s why you need to learn how to read critically.
There has to be some sort of course that people can take to teach them how to properly scrutinize sources and distinguish between good reporting and rumourmongering, rather than trying to take shortcuts like that.
And what’s up with all of the repetitive definitions and attempts to accuse you of being logically fallacious? It doesn’t make the replier look clever; it’s just extremely embarrassing.
The point we post explicitly liberal sources is to make liberals think even for just a second. Turns out, it's still not enough.
It's an old trolling technique, but this guy apparently didn't even understand how it's done.
I had a philosophy professor years ago who said that people who make catalogues of logical fallacies don't really understand logic. The true logician simply examines the argument, notes that it doesn't follow, and tells you why without using any jargon.
Being on the internet has convinced me this guy was completely correct.
It's not only an internet, reading philosphy in general i noticed it's awfully filled with jargon. And it tend to use it in worst possible manner.
Philosophy has a tendency to need to use very specialized language to avoid problems of ambiguity and to precisely identify concepts that have no reason to come up in the vast, vast majority of conversation among laypeople.
Yeah, but seriously what's even the point of such wisdom, especially when it can led people into things like subjective idealism. Or maybe it's because idealists needs to reach insane levels of abstraction to even explain their idiotic ideas.
Probably a certain amount of specialized terminology is neccesary, and the complete lack of it, as in (say) Nietzsche, doesn't always signify a profound thinker. But I agree with you that most contemporary philosophers use jargon simply to obscure.
I mean, from what i see Nietzsche key to popularity was precisely the fact he's understandable, because he mostly just rambled, but laymen at least can tell what he meant.
Liberals are basically a cult at this point, I honestly don't think it's possible to engage with them in a meaningful way. They've basically constructed a narrative regarding how the world works, and anything that doesn't fit into that narrative gets discarded. Amusingly, libs are able to recognize this behavior in other cults like qanon, but are not able to apply the same analysis to themselves.
I suspect it's going to take a crisis that affect these people in a tangible material way for them to start questioning their beliefs and examining things in a critical fashion.
And the types of replies in that thread are basically a learned behavior where libs just dismiss things they don't want to hear and expect the rest of the libs to pile on to downvote.
Makes it twice as funny when the browbeating cavalry fails to arrive
💯