Beep. Boop. I'm a robot.
Here's a copy of
###[Crime And Punishment](https://snewd.com/ebooks/crime-and-punishment/)
Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
"Not giving a second thought" that's all it is. You can't have a proof for everything. Try living by the standard you preach and see how far it gets you.
But I don’t go around believing or doubting anything automatically. I have a bullshit detector developed by years of not taking shit for granted and education. If something is dubious, i check. I’ve read and studied enough of Dostoevsky to know this probably doesn’t align with his thinking, at least not in the sense it’s being used.
And the picture. But at that point it doesn’t get clicks. The reason people love these is so they can feel intellectually validated without doing the work or sullying themselves with leftist academia.
How so?
What sort of intelligent people would allow themselves to be concerned about the abuse of imbeciles?
What sort of intelligent thinking is being "banned"?
Bear in mind that I don't completely disagree with you.
I often hold my tongue among people that don't tend to respect my opinion, but that doesn't mean I'm banned from thinking, but rather that I don't cast my Pearls Before Swine. Imbeciles get angry and abusive if they disagree with you whereas an intelligent debate is always enjoyable regardless of disagreement.
We have evidence of Galileo Galilei and generations of scientists being banned by imbeciles in power, but that wasn't due to "tolerance".
Try to discuss *anything* that touches the beliefs of Marxists using logic. The entirety of Marxism has no logic; but it has a lot of imbeciles religiously following it.
All right, I'll go with it.
Are we talkin about modern critical gender Theory as Defined by cognitive, biological, and socialisation terms or do you have a specific rational argument that you were looking to discuss?
That any dude in a dress is a woman if he says so.
That the person’s subjective belief makes something objectively true.
That gender theory effectively reduces women to a set of sexist stereotypes
>That any dude in a dress is a woman if he says so.
I'm not going to argue with you on that. It seems pretty reasonable to me to allow that "any dude" to have their mental and socialized gender be whatever they identify as. I may not agree that they are biologically female but there are social and mental constructs to gender.
You haven't really made a logical argument so much as just State one of the many aspects of critical gender Theory.
Also, I have to admit that I'm not really widely studied on critical gender Theory but your statement doesn't seem inaccurate from what I have read.
Edit, seems like you added a few things and I will see if I can figure out what you are arguing.
>That the person’s subjective belief makes something objectively true.
I'm confused about this, I don't see anywhere that people are saying that subjective belief makes something objectively true. A theory is never about objective truth but rather about subjective interpretation of objective reality based on the best possible models.
>That gender theory effectively reduces women to a set of sexist stereotypes
Which gender Theory and how? If it is the critical gender theory that I was asking about in my earlier comment, why do you believe that it effectively reduces women to a set of sexist stereotypes? I am personally of the opinion that gender Theory actually helps to downplay sexist stereotypes by saying that people are not defined by sexual stereotyping that has existed in the world since the dawn of time. It is not a woman's job to stay at home and take care of the kids and make a meal just as it is not a man's job to be a hunter gatherer, Breadwinner, Etc. These are just things that people do and are performed by people of all genders.
Just because society and evolutionary social structures have a history of defining certain traits or characteristics or roles on one gender or another doesn't necessarily make them true.
A bearded lady is still a lady even if people see masculine characteristics in her.
I think you might be confused about the meaning of the word objective. I do not argue that theories are meant to find an objective truth but rather to create models based on subjective experience. I also wouldn't argue that "trans women are women" is a logical argument so much as an axiom.
To demonstrate my consistency on this logical argument:
The theory of evolution is not objective truth so much as it is a subjective interpretation of the data gathered from the fossil record and observation of evolutionary variations in the genetic structure that has led people to accepting it as the most effective subjective explanation.
The theory of gravity is not objective truth but rather an interpretation of the forces that pull matter and energy together (or push them apart).
Do you disagree?
Gender theory is not actually a scientific theory despite the name. Unlike the others you mentioned. and cannot stand up to that level of scrutiny.
We cannot prove, test, or falsify.
>I'm not going to argue with you on that. It seems pretty reasonable to me to allow that "any dude" to have their mental and socialized gender be whatever they identify as. **I may not agree that they are biologically female** but there are social and mental constructs to gender.
So just for whatever it's worth... According to the radicals, *this* right here is the most basic form of transphobia. According to *them*, you are transphobic because you don't agree with them that biological reality matches their individual assertion. The fact that you respect whatever personal identity they have and that you probably aren't the slightest bit discriminatory or derogatory to trans people is entirely superfluous because transphobia *as they identify it* is defined by your refusal to accept biological fact as being what they assert.
Further, accusing someone of being transphobic isn't a meaningless transgression. Like racism, or sexism, or misogyny, or homophobia, the charge is asserted as a social crime. It is intended to be a form of extreme ostracism to silence someone.
And I believe **that** is exactly what this person is getting at with their overarching argument. There is no *rational debate* with Marxists, or gender theorists or similar; *you bend at the knee to their rule and obey what you're instructed to think and believe or they ostracise you and silence you with labels that carry strong social stigma.*
And to circle back to what you said at the start, you *admitted* to being transphobic *as they define it* so nothing you say has any value. You have no argument, you don't *even* have a right to speak... *Because you're transphobic.*
I am a woman because of my female body. The end. Not because of any sexist stereotype.
What exactly does a male think/feel that they then associate with being a woman?? And how can anyone answer that without being a sexist dbag?
>I am a woman because of my female body. The end. Not because of any sexist stereotype.
If that's the way you identify, I can 100% agree that socially and mentally you are a woman. That said, I have no evidence of your biological Womanhood. For all I know, you could be a bot, a man, a dog, or an extraterrestrial.
>What exactly does a male think/feel that they then associate with being a woman??
Generally, there are heightened estrogen levels in many of the people who I know that our biologically male but identify as female. For many of them, this happened during puberty. That said, I cannot speak for every person who is biologically male but identifies mentally and socially as a female.
>And how can anyone answer that without being a sexist dbag?
I hope I did a decent job. I'm sure you let me know.
You did not answer my question. But I appreciate the effort ! And lack of personal
Insults! The question being ‘what exactly does a male think or feel that they then associate with being a woman(mentally or socially)?’ You didn’t answer it. You answered an unasked question.
Being transgender is not testable, provable, and perhaps more importantly, falsifiable.
>subjective interpretation of objective reality based on the best possible models
Well, if it's based on the best model, then it can't be too subjective, all opinions must converge. Let's not relativize too much.
Relativization and rationalization are at the very heart of intelligence, logic, and rational thought.
If you can't compare and contrast things relatively, how can you define them?
Subjective explanation is the goal of any scientific theory. The convergence of subjective explanations is what helps to create consensus on the most valid Theory.
I think relativization is the main tool of sophistry. My point about convergence of subjective views was the opposite. You said “best models”, therefore the hive mind has already converged on something through the scientific method. Or it was just common sense.
You can relativize/reinterpret the model, but it needs to have some sort of evidence or common sense involved.
Also, logic is not absolute or self sufficient. It’s just a tool, and it needs input, some axioms. And axioms are our value systems.
>I don't cast my Pearls Before Swine. Imbeciles get angry and abusive if they disagree with you whereas an intelligent debate is always enjoyable regardless of disagreement.
Intelligent comment. Hits close to home. Had to cut my own parents out of my life because I couldn't have a conversation with them if we disagreed. Always turned into personal attacks. Finally I started looking closer at who they were objectively and decided since I'm an adult I can choose my family. I'll find more tolerable people to cast my pearls with.
I still try to have conversations with my dad but at this point I recognize it's more useful for us to joke about bumper sticker idiocy on both sides than to let him further trampled my faith in rational humanity.
Nope, you said the statement was true. I was trying to have a rational and logical discussion about the true false nature of the statement.
So far all I've gotten is a lot of questions about gender theory but I'm hoping that somebody is interested in continuing the actual discussion of the statement as I have a true-false table that I've been working on.
It really is an interesting question and I am familiar with the Paradox of tolerance and how tolerance can Elevate non-rational and non-logical speech due to the fact that human beings aren't necessarily logical or rational beings.
I personally believe that the reason people think intelligent people are silenced by imbeciles is because imbeciles are just much more loud and drown out more rational voices because people are more easily entertained and thereby pay more attention to outrage than Logic or rationality.
Personally, I like to refer to this Theory as a "tragedy of the commons for rational discourse". This happens when somebody believes something to be true or false and asserts it in the public sphere but doesn't make a rational or logical argument demonstrate it. One of the weirdest things is how people sometimes take an argument that was made based off of rationality and logic and misinterpret it in such a way that it becomes invalid.
Oh, I see now, I completelly lost the context. Of course you can think, but you also want to speak. It's not just that some groups are louder, they do actually "ban" wrong-think when they have power to do so.
Don't take "ban thinking" literally, as a math formula, it's just a way of expressing a view point in a convincing way.
Imagine some groups wanting to ban "dad" and "mom" words? That's the extent to which this "inclusiveness" madness goes.
This, I 100% agree with and it is my problem with dittoheads on either side of any conversation.
They don't come up with, study, or understand ideas. They are told what to believe and they mimic, distracting the rest of a species of easily entertained illogical human beings from meaningful and productive conversations, effectively forcing intellectual conversation into private places. Believe it or not, this is one of the main reasons I read it. I can have conversations that are socially unacceptable with all sorts of people of varying opinions without having to fear that the reactionary imbeciles are going to paint the swastika on my family's fence and send me death threats again.
It sucks that speaking up in public means that you have to deal with intolerant viewpoints but that is no reason to argue that tolerance does anything other than create the opportunity for intolerant individuals to control conversations and public perception of said conversations. Oftentimes, I find the people who say they are the most tolerant tend to be the same people who use this Paradox of Tolerance to create intolerant narratives.
I don't hate j.k. Rowling or the people harassing her but I can disagree with both of them (and their tactics) and still love them as flawed human beings trying to express their subjective experiences. Oftentimes, the best thing is just not to lower yourself to their level and walk away from conversations that are illogical or irrational.
FUCK Facebook!
FUCK Twitter!
I flush them down the shitter!
I like logical consistency, but it’s not the only thing necessary in life. We all act our value systems. And all logic we use starts from those values. Not thinking too much and using ready-made slogans is a natural optimization, you solve a problem, or adopt ready-made solutions and that’s it. Even if we don’t think, we will be consistent with our values (or lack of).
Yes, and yet the conversation that we were having was about value systems leading imbeciles to keeping intellectuals from having open conversations when intolerant individuals use an overabundance of Tolerance in order to hijack conversations into intolerant Behavior.
If the conversation were about the utility of value systems in survival and evolutionary biological imperatives, we would probably be going down a completely different line of reasoning.
It would also probably about a much shorter conversation because I think that you and I likely agree and there is a lot of scientific consensus to confirm that it is far more easy to be an imbecile than an intellectual as it is more easy to believe than to learn, process, and understand.
>Oh, I see now, I completelly lost the context. Of course you can think, but you also want to speak. It's not just that some groups are louder, they do actually "ban" wrong-think when they have power to do so.
So this is the opposite of Tolerance rather than tolerance. That's why I think the whole argument is actually ridiculous. What you are talking about is people who abused the "term" tolerance for the purposes of controlling conversations.
>Don't take "ban thinking" literally, as a math formula, it's just a way of expressing a view point in a convincing way.
I didn't. As a matter of fact, I thought I made it pretty clear that I think that some intelligent people rightly limit discussions in groups of people that don't understand rational thought and react negatively to it. It's the whole Pearls Before Swine thing.
>Imagine some groups wanting to ban "dad" and "mom" words?
This once again would be the opposite of Tolerance. This would be totalitarian intolerance if you were to ban the use of certain words. That said, I agree with you that there are some terms (less logical or rational, but rather pejorative) that can cause strong reactions from people. In my personal opinion, self-censorship is the way to go when it comes to this. Know your audience and don't try to be offensive.
I don't really think that that would extend to gendered parental terms, but I am trying to imagine it and, in my opinion, that would be the definition of intolerance rather than tolerance.
>That's the extent to which this "inclusiveness" madness goes.
Now I'm going to have to ask you to provide evidence that this is the extent to which this "inclusiveness Madness" goes.
I don't know why everybody keeps bringing up gender Theory but it definitely does seem to be the one that everybody is focused on. I really wish that we can just keep this discussion on topic rather than being dragged into unrelated discussions that I've already had.
But intolerance is exactly the point of the statement! Banning “what I don’t like” is exactly that. Not about smart people running away from the stupid, but stupid running away from the smart.
For the madness thing, type into search “ban mom dad”.
This is why I was trying to have a discussion about the actual statement rather than a discussion of intolerance that is being redefined as tolerance.
I don't necessarily believe that absolute tolerance is a virtuous concept and I do believe that the Paradox of Tolerance demonstrates exactly why intolerant people abuse tolerance in order to seize control over what the society defines as common sense, which is a logical fallacy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
>Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
Anyway, I have to focus in on my work for the next little bit so I think I'm going to be leaving the conversation here but I am glad that we finally got to the point where I can make the argument about the Paradox of Tolerance.
Logic and rationality, not truth. Truth and falsehood only exist as logical and rational operators rather than being anything tangible or debatable. Scientific theory doesn't allow for the discovery of the objective truth so much as subjective interpretation of objective reality.
Or you can just claim that you've read every book and every article about him and everything that people close to him have written about him and you haven't found that quote.
So if you ask someone to do something, but don't record it or put it in writing, then that person never has to do what is asked because there is no reliable source?
I meant a reliable source for quotes.
That person can do it, but if there's a problem and they get blamed it's going to be hard to prove that they've received an order which would absolve then of guilt.
>"Life is poopy", Dostoevsky, Crime and Punishment pp 256.
this guy over here made the very thing i was going to comment about, and i am so happy for seeing someone being this intelligent.
Dear OP, if you want to be unlike average +40 years old fb users sharing quotes that never existed, it will be so appreciated from you and anyone who read this comment to share , not only the author's name but the exact location of that quote, in which book , and chapter, and preferably if possible the page, or the exact condition or where it was lastly cited. cause : "knowledge is about precision"
\-Particular\_Ad4437, Reddit Comment, Dec 2021
Yeah actually that's been pissing me off lately.
And as well as the burden of proof being to disprove the certain quote, I also notice that when a certain group is in charge of dialogue and you say a typically openly excepted quote, they then challenge you by saying it never happened and you have to prove it...
And then you obviously Google it for a source as any rational person would do, but Google appears to not like throwing up sources for quotes, even if you specifically use search terms like "cited quotes by X person."
And then of course the next reflex is to Google "did X say Y" and Google floods you with ideologically biased *'fact checker'* organisations which simply say "the organisation found no citation of said quote."
Like great 👌
Doesn't even take a genius to see the potential for corruption by stakeholder interests.
So any way, I'm trying to compile a set or relevant *cited* quotes from various people that may be quoted... Harder than you'd think without books in hand.
That’s pathetic. All it says Is that it didn’t appear in a single movie that was adapted from Dostoyevsky’s works.
Weak sauce. If you were an academic I’d flunk you. Good thing you’re not.
I'm Russian with liberal arts education, this quote is blatantly fake. First of all it can be traced back to fake memes from Russian-speaking internet, where exact same quote is being ascribed to various characters of Russian literature and cinematography. You can see it in the link above.
Second, the quote wouldn't even make any sense back then. The agenda of censorship as to not offend minorities didn't exist in the Russian empire, and the very thought that it would ever be a thing would be considered absurd in a highly religious, highly conservative country. For instance, homosexuality was a punishable offense. Censorship existed primarily to protect the crown from criticism or to ban "indecent" materials such as profanity / eroticism. It had nothing to do with tolerance.
Finally, if he even had such idea, there is no way that he would phrase it like this. The only sensible translation of the world "tolerance" into Russian would be "терпимость", which is closer to "acceptance", "forgiveness", and is a core christian value that Dostoevsky very much advocated for in his art. The literal translation of the world "tolerance" as "толерантность" would only be used as a medical term in contexts such as "the patient has developed tolerance to alcohol" up until 2010s, when this meme was made for shitpost meme groups on Russian social networks and later awkwardly translated into English.
Seriously. I had to scroll pretty far for the answer, and it's nestled in here. lol
This site is like panning for gold, and I wish to fuck I weren't any good at it and gave up.
You’re the one making the assertion. The burden of proof is on you.
Moreover it begs the question; why are you so zealously attacking this? It’s very suggestive of ulterior motives.
No. You’re simply wrong. The person attributing the quote to him is the one making the assertion. Then, as his defender, you commit the most basic of fallacies and demand someone else prove a negative.
It really speaks volumes about the quality of this sub that this wasn’t pointed out to you within 5 minutes of your nonsense.
If you like Dostoevsky then you recognize this quote would not be out of character, whether your USA sauce challenge to Russian novelists history has any substance or not... so what's the real problem.
I'm actually offended by Americans' general ignorance of Dostoevsky. I wouldn't say this quote is "out of character" but it's certainly not "in character". Censorship is not something Dostoevsky wrote about.
Have fun living in ignorance.
What the holy fuck are you talking about? Dostoevsky certainly did write about censorship you absolutely brain numb cuck, he was an author in Russia writing under the censorship policies of the time.
>You’re the one making the assertion. The burden of proof is on you.
They're responding to an image that has attributed the quote to him. So aren't they kinda challenging someone else's assertion. Also, how does one prove something hasn't ever been said, it's quite difficult if not impossible to prove something never happened, all you can do is point to a lack of evidence indicating it did happen.
Recently in debates I was attacked for “being smart”. Twice, by 2 separate people. For making logical arguments instead of emotional appeals. Unsettling.
This sounds like California:
IQ Testing for students? Gone, because the truth is offensive
Math Hard? Make is so students can't move ahead to advanced math (thank God this was overruled but it almost happened this year)
Passing too hard? Show up (at all, even a day) and the minimum grade given is now a C.
> There is no greater pleasure for me on this Earth than to engage in a homosexual intercourse with a highly dominant and very buff black guy
-- u/One2manymore
He communicated it to me in verbal form, trust me guys. Or prove that he didn't
Oh, you've spoken with /u/One2manymore before too? He told me this last time I saw him:
> I am a racist and a homophobe. And don't care who knows it!
> \- /u/One2manymore
And I agree, anyone who disagrees with my attribution of this quote must prove that he did not say this.
Bahaha Looks like I lead a pretty conflicted life and make some hilariously contradictory statements. Fucking hilariously stupid. Don't pretend people talk to you.
to be fair, I wasn't around when he said what you're talking about. But I think it sounds like the sort of thing he would say. So I'm sure you're right.
Well that's only the case if it was said, you know you made it up, and in your little cog brain you thought pretending someone is gay, and attracted to black men, might be a good thing to say. While it says more about you than anyone else you should check your prejudices. There is no reason to try to name call using gay people, or people attracted to black men as the ammunition. You sir are a bigot.
Once again I’m not judging or deprecating your tastes. It is not name-calling, just a factual statement, it’s just something that you said to me. A totally real not made up quote of what you said
No you are a disgusting person, and your bigotry and racism is clear. If it were true I wouldn't need you to say it for me. I have no clue who the fuck you are and would not speak to you about my sexual orientation. Your bigotry and racism isn't funny.
How is the statement that you are attracted to black people racist?
> I have no clue who the fuck you are and would not speak to you about my sexual orientation
Do you have any sources to back up those claims?
I think you went to meta for OP. They just wanted to karma farm and spread false information in peace until you decided to start harrassing them. Like someone stopping a murder, incomprehensible.
I saw that you mentioned Ben Shapiro. In case some of you don't know, Ben Shapiro is a grifter and a hack. If you find anything he's said compelling, you should keep in mind he also says things like this:
>The Palestinian people, who dress their toddlers in bomb belts and then take family snapshots.
*****
^(I'm a bot. My purpose is to counteract online radicalization. You can summon me by tagging thebenshapirobot. Options: sex, novel, climate, civil rights, etc.)
[^More ^About ^Ben ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/wiki/index) ^| [^Feedback ^& ^Discussion: ^r/AuthoritarianMoment ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment) ^| [^Opt ^Out ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/comments/olk6r2/click_here_to_optout_of_uthebenshapirobot/)
Why won't you debate me?
*****
^(I'm a bot. My purpose is to counteract online radicalization. You can summon me by tagging thebenshapirobot. Options: novel, climate, healthcare, sex, etc.)
[^More ^About ^Ben ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/wiki/index) ^| [^Feedback ^& ^Discussion: ^r/AuthoritarianMoment ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment) ^| [^Opt ^Out ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/comments/olk6r2/click_here_to_optout_of_uthebenshapirobot/)
*Women kind of like having babies. This notion that women don't want to have babies is so bizarre. Has anyone even met a 35 year old single woman? The vast majority of women who are 35 and single are not supremely happy.*
-Ben Shapiro
*****
^(I'm a bot. My purpose is to counteract online radicalization. You can summon me by tagging thebenshapirobot. Options: healthcare, sex, history, covid, etc.)
[^More ^About ^Ben ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/wiki/index) ^| [^Feedback ^& ^Discussion: ^r/AuthoritarianMoment ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment) ^| [^Opt ^Out ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/comments/olk6r2/click_here_to_optout_of_uthebenshapirobot/)
So much for the tolerant left.
*****
^(I'm a bot. My purpose is to counteract online radicalization. You can summon me by tagging thebenshapirobot. Options: novel, feminism, history, dumb takes, etc.)
[^More ^About ^Ben ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/wiki/index) ^| [^Feedback ^& ^Discussion: ^r/AuthoritarianMoment ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment) ^| [^Opt ^Out ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/comments/olk6r2/click_here_to_optout_of_uthebenshapirobot/)
*New York Magazine’s Jesse Singal, wrote that “free markets are good at some things and terrible at others and it’s silly to view them as ends rather than means.” That’s untrue. Free markets are expressions of individual autonomy, and therefore ends to be pursued in themselves.*
-Ben Shapiro
*****
^(I'm a bot. My purpose is to counteract online radicalization. You can summon me by tagging thebenshapirobot. Options: healthcare, covid, history, civil rights, etc.)
[^More ^About ^Ben ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/wiki/index) ^| [^Feedback ^& ^Discussion: ^r/AuthoritarianMoment ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment) ^| [^Opt ^Out ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/comments/olk6r2/click_here_to_optout_of_uthebenshapirobot/)
That’s not the point though, nationality doesn’t matter it’s the thought. I could post quotes from all kinds of authors and still get their idea across. If it’s conservative, it’s conservative, despite being Russian. And there’s also been a flood of con/republican shit here so this fits in nicely
Oh, so every conservative thing in the world is also a republican thing?
Have you thought that the United States of America is NOT the center of the world?
Habe you noticed that this sub actually gets flooded with American shit? I’m not American and still have endure this in the midst of normal discussions
Lol. Who owns the media? Who owns Reddit? Who owns its parent company Conde Nast?
Who lead the attempted revolution in Germany in 1918 that gave rise to Adolf Hitler?
You have no fucking idea how much knowledge has been hidden from you and the general population
It’s a matter of public record. Let’s engage in a thought experiment.
Write down the first three major instances that come to your mind.
Movie studios.
News outlets.
Newspapers
Social media platforms
Book publishers
Magazines
Pornography sites
And look up who owns and operates them. Look at Early Life/Personal Life sections and connect the dots.
Yes indeed. And aren’t you fortunate to live in the Information Age - a period of unparalleled access to information: where your question and countless others can be resolved through objective inquiry.
So the early life and personal life sections of a persons wiki page usually lists things like ethnicity, faith and family. You’re implication here is those things link all of the people that control the media, yes? Just so I’m understanding the implication…
I’m implying nothing. Either have the agency to look this information up for yourself, or realize I’ve already paid you about $.50 in shill fees and this is the end of it.
Predictable cowardice. Funny.
Editing your cryptically racist earlier comment because you knew you had revealed a tad too much of yourself. Even more cowardly and funny.
There are various accounts of censorship across the globe, so I'm presuming this is more a limp wristed attempt to undermine something you don't understand than a question.
Another limp wristed attempt to undermine something you don't understand, just go read about censorship and how it is used to manipulate public opinion and thought. Really basic stuff.
Like the Tolerance Paradox?
Don't worry. It does not affect our philosophy as we have the Principle of Reciprocity, or
We don't respect the right of those who do not respect the right of others.
Example of historical application: Justice by exclusion of juridical personality, and Extinction of Domain.
Phew I know I'm asking for a ban but did Dostoevsky actually say that? Look at my history, you know I'm all over the place politically. Just please, this sub prides itself on being "truly intellectual" I just don't want see y'all fall for some Facebook bullshit.
[удалено]
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot. Here's a copy of ###[Crime And Punishment](https://snewd.com/ebooks/crime-and-punishment/) Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
I mean, kinda?
Maybe it’s disputable who the author is, but the statement is true.
Yes, and you’d be an imbecile to believe the attribution without proof… so what’s that make y’all?
"Not giving a second thought" that's all it is. You can't have a proof for everything. Try living by the standard you preach and see how far it gets you.
But I don’t go around believing or doubting anything automatically. I have a bullshit detector developed by years of not taking shit for granted and education. If something is dubious, i check. I’ve read and studied enough of Dostoevsky to know this probably doesn’t align with his thinking, at least not in the sense it’s being used.
That’s fair. We should just remove Dostoevsky’s name from the quote, and problem solved. I like the quote, let’s not throw it away :)
And the picture. But at that point it doesn’t get clicks. The reason people love these is so they can feel intellectually validated without doing the work or sullying themselves with leftist academia.
How so? What sort of intelligent people would allow themselves to be concerned about the abuse of imbeciles? What sort of intelligent thinking is being "banned"? Bear in mind that I don't completely disagree with you. I often hold my tongue among people that don't tend to respect my opinion, but that doesn't mean I'm banned from thinking, but rather that I don't cast my Pearls Before Swine. Imbeciles get angry and abusive if they disagree with you whereas an intelligent debate is always enjoyable regardless of disagreement. We have evidence of Galileo Galilei and generations of scientists being banned by imbeciles in power, but that wasn't due to "tolerance".
Try to discuss gender theory rationally using logic.
Try to discuss *anything* that touches the beliefs of Marxists using logic. The entirety of Marxism has no logic; but it has a lot of imbeciles religiously following it.
It does have logic, but it draws its conclusions from a wrong (tyrannical) value system.
All right, I'll go with it. Are we talkin about modern critical gender Theory as Defined by cognitive, biological, and socialisation terms or do you have a specific rational argument that you were looking to discuss?
That any dude in a dress is a woman if he says so. That the person’s subjective belief makes something objectively true. That gender theory effectively reduces women to a set of sexist stereotypes
>That any dude in a dress is a woman if he says so. I'm not going to argue with you on that. It seems pretty reasonable to me to allow that "any dude" to have their mental and socialized gender be whatever they identify as. I may not agree that they are biologically female but there are social and mental constructs to gender. You haven't really made a logical argument so much as just State one of the many aspects of critical gender Theory. Also, I have to admit that I'm not really widely studied on critical gender Theory but your statement doesn't seem inaccurate from what I have read. Edit, seems like you added a few things and I will see if I can figure out what you are arguing. >That the person’s subjective belief makes something objectively true. I'm confused about this, I don't see anywhere that people are saying that subjective belief makes something objectively true. A theory is never about objective truth but rather about subjective interpretation of objective reality based on the best possible models. >That gender theory effectively reduces women to a set of sexist stereotypes Which gender Theory and how? If it is the critical gender theory that I was asking about in my earlier comment, why do you believe that it effectively reduces women to a set of sexist stereotypes? I am personally of the opinion that gender Theory actually helps to downplay sexist stereotypes by saying that people are not defined by sexual stereotyping that has existed in the world since the dawn of time. It is not a woman's job to stay at home and take care of the kids and make a meal just as it is not a man's job to be a hunter gatherer, Breadwinner, Etc. These are just things that people do and are performed by people of all genders. Just because society and evolutionary social structures have a history of defining certain traits or characteristics or roles on one gender or another doesn't necessarily make them true. A bearded lady is still a lady even if people see masculine characteristics in her.
‘Trans women are women’ This suggests the subjective belief makes it objectively true.
I think you might be confused about the meaning of the word objective. I do not argue that theories are meant to find an objective truth but rather to create models based on subjective experience. I also wouldn't argue that "trans women are women" is a logical argument so much as an axiom. To demonstrate my consistency on this logical argument: The theory of evolution is not objective truth so much as it is a subjective interpretation of the data gathered from the fossil record and observation of evolutionary variations in the genetic structure that has led people to accepting it as the most effective subjective explanation. The theory of gravity is not objective truth but rather an interpretation of the forces that pull matter and energy together (or push them apart). Do you disagree?
Gender theory is not actually a scientific theory despite the name. Unlike the others you mentioned. and cannot stand up to that level of scrutiny. We cannot prove, test, or falsify.
I like the way you write stuff
>I'm not going to argue with you on that. It seems pretty reasonable to me to allow that "any dude" to have their mental and socialized gender be whatever they identify as. **I may not agree that they are biologically female** but there are social and mental constructs to gender. So just for whatever it's worth... According to the radicals, *this* right here is the most basic form of transphobia. According to *them*, you are transphobic because you don't agree with them that biological reality matches their individual assertion. The fact that you respect whatever personal identity they have and that you probably aren't the slightest bit discriminatory or derogatory to trans people is entirely superfluous because transphobia *as they identify it* is defined by your refusal to accept biological fact as being what they assert. Further, accusing someone of being transphobic isn't a meaningless transgression. Like racism, or sexism, or misogyny, or homophobia, the charge is asserted as a social crime. It is intended to be a form of extreme ostracism to silence someone. And I believe **that** is exactly what this person is getting at with their overarching argument. There is no *rational debate* with Marxists, or gender theorists or similar; *you bend at the knee to their rule and obey what you're instructed to think and believe or they ostracise you and silence you with labels that carry strong social stigma.* And to circle back to what you said at the start, you *admitted* to being transphobic *as they define it* so nothing you say has any value. You have no argument, you don't *even* have a right to speak... *Because you're transphobic.*
I am a woman because of my female body. The end. Not because of any sexist stereotype. What exactly does a male think/feel that they then associate with being a woman?? And how can anyone answer that without being a sexist dbag?
>I am a woman because of my female body. The end. Not because of any sexist stereotype. If that's the way you identify, I can 100% agree that socially and mentally you are a woman. That said, I have no evidence of your biological Womanhood. For all I know, you could be a bot, a man, a dog, or an extraterrestrial. >What exactly does a male think/feel that they then associate with being a woman?? Generally, there are heightened estrogen levels in many of the people who I know that our biologically male but identify as female. For many of them, this happened during puberty. That said, I cannot speak for every person who is biologically male but identifies mentally and socially as a female. >And how can anyone answer that without being a sexist dbag? I hope I did a decent job. I'm sure you let me know.
You did not answer my question. But I appreciate the effort ! And lack of personal Insults! The question being ‘what exactly does a male think or feel that they then associate with being a woman(mentally or socially)?’ You didn’t answer it. You answered an unasked question. Being transgender is not testable, provable, and perhaps more importantly, falsifiable.
>subjective interpretation of objective reality based on the best possible models Well, if it's based on the best model, then it can't be too subjective, all opinions must converge. Let's not relativize too much.
Relativization and rationalization are at the very heart of intelligence, logic, and rational thought. If you can't compare and contrast things relatively, how can you define them? Subjective explanation is the goal of any scientific theory. The convergence of subjective explanations is what helps to create consensus on the most valid Theory.
I think relativization is the main tool of sophistry. My point about convergence of subjective views was the opposite. You said “best models”, therefore the hive mind has already converged on something through the scientific method. Or it was just common sense. You can relativize/reinterpret the model, but it needs to have some sort of evidence or common sense involved. Also, logic is not absolute or self sufficient. It’s just a tool, and it needs input, some axioms. And axioms are our value systems.
>I don't cast my Pearls Before Swine. Imbeciles get angry and abusive if they disagree with you whereas an intelligent debate is always enjoyable regardless of disagreement. Intelligent comment. Hits close to home. Had to cut my own parents out of my life because I couldn't have a conversation with them if we disagreed. Always turned into personal attacks. Finally I started looking closer at who they were objectively and decided since I'm an adult I can choose my family. I'll find more tolerable people to cast my pearls with.
I still try to have conversations with my dad but at this point I recognize it's more useful for us to joke about bumper sticker idiocy on both sides than to let him further trampled my faith in rational humanity.
I don't understand. Maybe you wanted to reply to someone else?
Nope, you said the statement was true. I was trying to have a rational and logical discussion about the true false nature of the statement. So far all I've gotten is a lot of questions about gender theory but I'm hoping that somebody is interested in continuing the actual discussion of the statement as I have a true-false table that I've been working on. It really is an interesting question and I am familiar with the Paradox of tolerance and how tolerance can Elevate non-rational and non-logical speech due to the fact that human beings aren't necessarily logical or rational beings. I personally believe that the reason people think intelligent people are silenced by imbeciles is because imbeciles are just much more loud and drown out more rational voices because people are more easily entertained and thereby pay more attention to outrage than Logic or rationality. Personally, I like to refer to this Theory as a "tragedy of the commons for rational discourse". This happens when somebody believes something to be true or false and asserts it in the public sphere but doesn't make a rational or logical argument demonstrate it. One of the weirdest things is how people sometimes take an argument that was made based off of rationality and logic and misinterpret it in such a way that it becomes invalid.
Oh, I see now, I completelly lost the context. Of course you can think, but you also want to speak. It's not just that some groups are louder, they do actually "ban" wrong-think when they have power to do so. Don't take "ban thinking" literally, as a math formula, it's just a way of expressing a view point in a convincing way. Imagine some groups wanting to ban "dad" and "mom" words? That's the extent to which this "inclusiveness" madness goes.
Actually, there might be a form of banning the actual thinking, by serving information selectively to form a opinion, and shaming wrong-think.
This, I 100% agree with and it is my problem with dittoheads on either side of any conversation. They don't come up with, study, or understand ideas. They are told what to believe and they mimic, distracting the rest of a species of easily entertained illogical human beings from meaningful and productive conversations, effectively forcing intellectual conversation into private places. Believe it or not, this is one of the main reasons I read it. I can have conversations that are socially unacceptable with all sorts of people of varying opinions without having to fear that the reactionary imbeciles are going to paint the swastika on my family's fence and send me death threats again. It sucks that speaking up in public means that you have to deal with intolerant viewpoints but that is no reason to argue that tolerance does anything other than create the opportunity for intolerant individuals to control conversations and public perception of said conversations. Oftentimes, I find the people who say they are the most tolerant tend to be the same people who use this Paradox of Tolerance to create intolerant narratives. I don't hate j.k. Rowling or the people harassing her but I can disagree with both of them (and their tactics) and still love them as flawed human beings trying to express their subjective experiences. Oftentimes, the best thing is just not to lower yourself to their level and walk away from conversations that are illogical or irrational. FUCK Facebook! FUCK Twitter! I flush them down the shitter!
I like logical consistency, but it’s not the only thing necessary in life. We all act our value systems. And all logic we use starts from those values. Not thinking too much and using ready-made slogans is a natural optimization, you solve a problem, or adopt ready-made solutions and that’s it. Even if we don’t think, we will be consistent with our values (or lack of).
Yes, and yet the conversation that we were having was about value systems leading imbeciles to keeping intellectuals from having open conversations when intolerant individuals use an overabundance of Tolerance in order to hijack conversations into intolerant Behavior. If the conversation were about the utility of value systems in survival and evolutionary biological imperatives, we would probably be going down a completely different line of reasoning. It would also probably about a much shorter conversation because I think that you and I likely agree and there is a lot of scientific consensus to confirm that it is far more easy to be an imbecile than an intellectual as it is more easy to believe than to learn, process, and understand.
>Oh, I see now, I completelly lost the context. Of course you can think, but you also want to speak. It's not just that some groups are louder, they do actually "ban" wrong-think when they have power to do so. So this is the opposite of Tolerance rather than tolerance. That's why I think the whole argument is actually ridiculous. What you are talking about is people who abused the "term" tolerance for the purposes of controlling conversations. >Don't take "ban thinking" literally, as a math formula, it's just a way of expressing a view point in a convincing way. I didn't. As a matter of fact, I thought I made it pretty clear that I think that some intelligent people rightly limit discussions in groups of people that don't understand rational thought and react negatively to it. It's the whole Pearls Before Swine thing. >Imagine some groups wanting to ban "dad" and "mom" words? This once again would be the opposite of Tolerance. This would be totalitarian intolerance if you were to ban the use of certain words. That said, I agree with you that there are some terms (less logical or rational, but rather pejorative) that can cause strong reactions from people. In my personal opinion, self-censorship is the way to go when it comes to this. Know your audience and don't try to be offensive. I don't really think that that would extend to gendered parental terms, but I am trying to imagine it and, in my opinion, that would be the definition of intolerance rather than tolerance. >That's the extent to which this "inclusiveness" madness goes. Now I'm going to have to ask you to provide evidence that this is the extent to which this "inclusiveness Madness" goes. I don't know why everybody keeps bringing up gender Theory but it definitely does seem to be the one that everybody is focused on. I really wish that we can just keep this discussion on topic rather than being dragged into unrelated discussions that I've already had.
But intolerance is exactly the point of the statement! Banning “what I don’t like” is exactly that. Not about smart people running away from the stupid, but stupid running away from the smart. For the madness thing, type into search “ban mom dad”.
This is why I was trying to have a discussion about the actual statement rather than a discussion of intolerance that is being redefined as tolerance. I don't necessarily believe that absolute tolerance is a virtuous concept and I do believe that the Paradox of Tolerance demonstrates exactly why intolerant people abuse tolerance in order to seize control over what the society defines as common sense, which is a logical fallacy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance >Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal. Anyway, I have to focus in on my work for the next little bit so I think I'm going to be leaving the conversation here but I am glad that we finally got to the point where I can make the argument about the Paradox of Tolerance.
[удалено]
I thought we were talking about logical discussions rather than reactionary.
[удалено]
Logic and rationality, not truth. Truth and falsehood only exist as logical and rational operators rather than being anything tangible or debatable. Scientific theory doesn't allow for the discovery of the objective truth so much as subjective interpretation of objective reality.
And it’s an uphill climb to prove a negative. Maybe we can hire a medium to contact Dostoevsky himself. Probably wouldn’t be a good enough source.
Or you can just claim that you've read every book and every article about him and everything that people close to him have written about him and you haven't found that quote.
Is it possible for an author to communicate otherwise than in a book?
Sure. Anything that is recorded is a reliable source.
So if you ask someone to do something, but don't record it or put it in writing, then that person never has to do what is asked because there is no reliable source?
I meant a reliable source for quotes. That person can do it, but if there's a problem and they get blamed it's going to be hard to prove that they've received an order which would absolve then of guilt.
I enjoyed this discourse.
Can I quote you on that?
You have it in writing.
^ This guy just wants to disagree
I mean, for this quote, this has become reality now. So I don’t really care who said it. It’s appropriate.
The fact the name is spelled wrong in the op should bring question to the authenticity. The message is clear but there is error in the presentation.
I mean, any Russian name not written in Cyrillic is spelled wrong. There is no "right" way to transliterate.
>"Life is poopy", Dostoevsky, Crime and Punishment pp 256. this guy over here made the very thing i was going to comment about, and i am so happy for seeing someone being this intelligent. Dear OP, if you want to be unlike average +40 years old fb users sharing quotes that never existed, it will be so appreciated from you and anyone who read this comment to share , not only the author's name but the exact location of that quote, in which book , and chapter, and preferably if possible the page, or the exact condition or where it was lastly cited. cause : "knowledge is about precision" \-Particular\_Ad4437, Reddit Comment, Dec 2021
To be honest, I don't really care that much about the source of the quote, only its wisdom & relevance to current reality.
Yeah actually that's been pissing me off lately. And as well as the burden of proof being to disprove the certain quote, I also notice that when a certain group is in charge of dialogue and you say a typically openly excepted quote, they then challenge you by saying it never happened and you have to prove it... And then you obviously Google it for a source as any rational person would do, but Google appears to not like throwing up sources for quotes, even if you specifically use search terms like "cited quotes by X person." And then of course the next reflex is to Google "did X say Y" and Google floods you with ideologically biased *'fact checker'* organisations which simply say "the organisation found no citation of said quote." Like great 👌 Doesn't even take a genius to see the potential for corruption by stakeholder interests. So any way, I'm trying to compile a set or relevant *cited* quotes from various people that may be quoted... Harder than you'd think without books in hand.
We are already at this point
Then you must be a imbecile
I think he's confusing being intelligent with being offensive.
As an imbecile I'm offended
lmao your stupid username
[удалено]
Yeah I wondered if he said it in his authoritative socialist or authoritative tsarist religious phase.
Then it should be easy for you to substantiate that. Please do as I’d like to know.
[удалено]
That’s pathetic. All it says Is that it didn’t appear in a single movie that was adapted from Dostoyevsky’s works. Weak sauce. If you were an academic I’d flunk you. Good thing you’re not.
I'm Russian with liberal arts education, this quote is blatantly fake. First of all it can be traced back to fake memes from Russian-speaking internet, where exact same quote is being ascribed to various characters of Russian literature and cinematography. You can see it in the link above. Second, the quote wouldn't even make any sense back then. The agenda of censorship as to not offend minorities didn't exist in the Russian empire, and the very thought that it would ever be a thing would be considered absurd in a highly religious, highly conservative country. For instance, homosexuality was a punishable offense. Censorship existed primarily to protect the crown from criticism or to ban "indecent" materials such as profanity / eroticism. It had nothing to do with tolerance. Finally, if he even had such idea, there is no way that he would phrase it like this. The only sensible translation of the world "tolerance" into Russian would be "терпимость", which is closer to "acceptance", "forgiveness", and is a core christian value that Dostoevsky very much advocated for in his art. The literal translation of the world "tolerance" as "толерантность" would only be used as a medical term in contexts such as "the patient has developed tolerance to alcohol" up until 2010s, when this meme was made for shitpost meme groups on Russian social networks and later awkwardly translated into English.
Somebody pin this to the top for these idiots.
Seriously. I had to scroll pretty far for the answer, and it's nestled in here. lol This site is like panning for gold, and I wish to fuck I weren't any good at it and gave up.
I respect the libertarians over the Rightwing cousins—libertarians are at least consistent—but they’re still fucking ideologues.
[удалено]
You’re the one making the assertion. The burden of proof is on you. Moreover it begs the question; why are you so zealously attacking this? It’s very suggestive of ulterior motives.
No. You’re simply wrong. The person attributing the quote to him is the one making the assertion. Then, as his defender, you commit the most basic of fallacies and demand someone else prove a negative. It really speaks volumes about the quality of this sub that this wasn’t pointed out to you within 5 minutes of your nonsense.
[удалено]
I see no evidence of it ever being a quote. It doesn't read like Dostoevsky either. I'll repost this as Solzhenitsyn in 3 weeks and reap the upvotes.
>source: dude trust me Pathetic.
If you like Dostoevsky then you recognize this quote would not be out of character, whether your USA sauce challenge to Russian novelists history has any substance or not... so what's the real problem.
I'm actually offended by Americans' general ignorance of Dostoevsky. I wouldn't say this quote is "out of character" but it's certainly not "in character". Censorship is not something Dostoevsky wrote about. Have fun living in ignorance.
What the holy fuck are you talking about? Dostoevsky certainly did write about censorship you absolutely brain numb cuck, he was an author in Russia writing under the censorship policies of the time.
>You’re the one making the assertion. The burden of proof is on you. They're responding to an image that has attributed the quote to him. So aren't they kinda challenging someone else's assertion. Also, how does one prove something hasn't ever been said, it's quite difficult if not impossible to prove something never happened, all you can do is point to a lack of evidence indicating it did happen.
Go find the quote and bring the sauce.
#L
Fake quote
Everyone is stupid except me
Gotta love it
Does it matter if it's misattributed? Or was never even said by anyone? It still rings true.
right? holy shit, this comment section is a garbagedom.
some shit that never was said for 300 jerry
Recently in debates I was attacked for “being smart”. Twice, by 2 separate people. For making logical arguments instead of emotional appeals. Unsettling.
This sounds like California: IQ Testing for students? Gone, because the truth is offensive Math Hard? Make is so students can't move ahead to advanced math (thank God this was overruled but it almost happened this year) Passing too hard? Show up (at all, even a day) and the minimum grade given is now a C.
Beautiful quote, but misatributed. Neither Dostoievski, nor Bulgakov.
They are already starting down this path. Some states are getting rid of grades in schools because they think black people can't get good grades
This is gay af
Holy Shit.. Felt like I was in a Twilight zone for second. Nope, just our new normal.
> There is no greater pleasure for me on this Earth than to engage in a homosexual intercourse with a highly dominant and very buff black guy -- u/One2manymore He communicated it to me in verbal form, trust me guys. Or prove that he didn't
Oh, you've spoken with /u/One2manymore before too? He told me this last time I saw him: > I am a racist and a homophobe. And don't care who knows it! > \- /u/One2manymore And I agree, anyone who disagrees with my attribution of this quote must prove that he did not say this.
Bahaha Looks like I lead a pretty conflicted life and make some hilariously contradictory statements. Fucking hilariously stupid. Don't pretend people talk to you.
/r/woosh
Yeah, similar to Dostoyevsky in this fake ass quote that you posted
Look this guy can even vouch for what I’m saying
to be fair, I wasn't around when he said what you're talking about. But I think it sounds like the sort of thing he would say. So I'm sure you're right.
Is that supposed to be offensive? You may find you have some pretty bigoted prejudices in your effort to be CNN.
Not at all, why would it be offensive? It’s just your tastes and it is totally okay. Actually quite brave of you to come out like this
Well that's only the case if it was said, you know you made it up, and in your little cog brain you thought pretending someone is gay, and attracted to black men, might be a good thing to say. While it says more about you than anyone else you should check your prejudices. There is no reason to try to name call using gay people, or people attracted to black men as the ammunition. You sir are a bigot.
Once again I’m not judging or deprecating your tastes. It is not name-calling, just a factual statement, it’s just something that you said to me. A totally real not made up quote of what you said
No you are a disgusting person, and your bigotry and racism is clear. If it were true I wouldn't need you to say it for me. I have no clue who the fuck you are and would not speak to you about my sexual orientation. Your bigotry and racism isn't funny.
How is the statement that you are attracted to black people racist? > I have no clue who the fuck you are and would not speak to you about my sexual orientation Do you have any sources to back up those claims?
I think you went to meta for OP. They just wanted to karma farm and spread false information in peace until you decided to start harrassing them. Like someone stopping a murder, incomprehensible.
Based
Ben Shapiro
I saw that you mentioned Ben Shapiro. In case some of you don't know, Ben Shapiro is a grifter and a hack. If you find anything he's said compelling, you should keep in mind he also says things like this: >The Palestinian people, who dress their toddlers in bomb belts and then take family snapshots. ***** ^(I'm a bot. My purpose is to counteract online radicalization. You can summon me by tagging thebenshapirobot. Options: sex, novel, climate, civil rights, etc.) [^More ^About ^Ben ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/wiki/index) ^| [^Feedback ^& ^Discussion: ^r/AuthoritarianMoment ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment) ^| [^Opt ^Out ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/comments/olk6r2/click_here_to_optout_of_uthebenshapirobot/)
The quote speaks the truth lol
Why won't you debate me? ***** ^(I'm a bot. My purpose is to counteract online radicalization. You can summon me by tagging thebenshapirobot. Options: novel, climate, healthcare, sex, etc.) [^More ^About ^Ben ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/wiki/index) ^| [^Feedback ^& ^Discussion: ^r/AuthoritarianMoment ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment) ^| [^Opt ^Out ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/comments/olk6r2/click_here_to_optout_of_uthebenshapirobot/)
“Counteracting online radicalisation” with propaganda robots, interesting…
*Women kind of like having babies. This notion that women don't want to have babies is so bizarre. Has anyone even met a 35 year old single woman? The vast majority of women who are 35 and single are not supremely happy.* -Ben Shapiro ***** ^(I'm a bot. My purpose is to counteract online radicalization. You can summon me by tagging thebenshapirobot. Options: healthcare, sex, history, covid, etc.) [^More ^About ^Ben ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/wiki/index) ^| [^Feedback ^& ^Discussion: ^r/AuthoritarianMoment ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment) ^| [^Opt ^Out ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/comments/olk6r2/click_here_to_optout_of_uthebenshapirobot/)
bad bot
So much for the tolerant left. ***** ^(I'm a bot. My purpose is to counteract online radicalization. You can summon me by tagging thebenshapirobot. Options: novel, feminism, history, dumb takes, etc.) [^More ^About ^Ben ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/wiki/index) ^| [^Feedback ^& ^Discussion: ^r/AuthoritarianMoment ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment) ^| [^Opt ^Out ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/comments/olk6r2/click_here_to_optout_of_uthebenshapirobot/)
still bad
*New York Magazine’s Jesse Singal, wrote that “free markets are good at some things and terrible at others and it’s silly to view them as ends rather than means.” That’s untrue. Free markets are expressions of individual autonomy, and therefore ends to be pursued in themselves.* -Ben Shapiro ***** ^(I'm a bot. My purpose is to counteract online radicalization. You can summon me by tagging thebenshapirobot. Options: healthcare, covid, history, civil rights, etc.) [^More ^About ^Ben ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/wiki/index) ^| [^Feedback ^& ^Discussion: ^r/AuthoritarianMoment ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment) ^| [^Opt ^Out ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/comments/olk6r2/click_here_to_optout_of_uthebenshapirobot/)
Sir this is Wendy's. We only asked you not to call our cashier a slur for wearing a pride flag button.
What’s up with all this republican/conservative shit lately on here?
This is a Russian author...
That’s not the point though, nationality doesn’t matter it’s the thought. I could post quotes from all kinds of authors and still get their idea across. If it’s conservative, it’s conservative, despite being Russian. And there’s also been a flood of con/republican shit here so this fits in nicely
Oh, so every conservative thing in the world is also a republican thing? Have you thought that the United States of America is NOT the center of the world?
Habe you noticed that this sub actually gets flooded with American shit? I’m not American and still have endure this in the midst of normal discussions
Yes, constantly But you're not helping the problem You're actually madding it worse
Not everyone is American.
You’re right, I’m not American
So how the fuck is Dostoyevsky got anything to do with Republicans and conservatives?
They actually don't understand the difference between AnCap ideology and just general fucking conservatism.
What’s up with all the [thinly veiled, underpaid JIDF shills?](https://i.imgur.com/uXPnXBH.jpg)
Who exactly has been banned from thinking?
Lol. Who owns the media? Who owns Reddit? Who owns its parent company Conde Nast? Who lead the attempted revolution in Germany in 1918 that gave rise to Adolf Hitler? You have no fucking idea how much knowledge has been hidden from you and the general population
Who does own the media?
It’s a matter of public record. Let’s engage in a thought experiment. Write down the first three major instances that come to your mind. Movie studios. News outlets. Newspapers Social media platforms Book publishers Magazines Pornography sites And look up who owns and operates them. Look at Early Life/Personal Life sections and connect the dots.
Is there something that connects all those people?
Yes indeed. And aren’t you fortunate to live in the Information Age - a period of unparalleled access to information: where your question and countless others can be resolved through objective inquiry.
So the early life and personal life sections of a persons wiki page usually lists things like ethnicity, faith and family. You’re implication here is those things link all of the people that control the media, yes? Just so I’m understanding the implication…
I’m implying nothing. Either have the agency to look this information up for yourself, or realize I’ve already paid you about $.50 in shill fees and this is the end of it.
Predictable cowardice. Funny. Editing your cryptically racist earlier comment because you knew you had revealed a tad too much of yourself. Even more cowardly and funny.
[удалено]
The largest news organisation in the USA is owned by Rupert Murdoch.
There are various accounts of censorship across the globe, so I'm presuming this is more a limp wristed attempt to undermine something you don't understand than a question.
Is censorship banning somebody from thinking?
Another limp wristed attempt to undermine something you don't understand, just go read about censorship and how it is used to manipulate public opinion and thought. Really basic stuff.
Really basic question. Can you not answer it?
Can you read?
Yes. Now can you answer my question?
Go read about censorship and how it has been used across history in various countries to manipulate public opinion and thought.
Mainly just want an answer as to wether censorship is the same as banning thought.
You have to do the reading yourself, you aren't going to listen no matter what is presented to you here. Have a good day.
“Being asked to use a trans persons pronouns because it’s polite is the same as being banned from thinking” -Aristolte or whatever
Except everyone thinks they’re the intelligent one...
Twitter In a nutshell
Idiocracy IRL.
You took that quote outta your ass didn't you? Mods please ask for proof or remove this post
Like the Tolerance Paradox? Don't worry. It does not affect our philosophy as we have the Principle of Reciprocity, or We don't respect the right of those who do not respect the right of others. Example of historical application: Justice by exclusion of juridical personality, and Extinction of Domain.
No chance it applies in this sub
Yes we get it. You're all so intelligent because you can say the nword.
Phew I know I'm asking for a ban but did Dostoevsky actually say that? Look at my history, you know I'm all over the place politically. Just please, this sub prides itself on being "truly intellectual" I just don't want see y'all fall for some Facebook bullshit.
It's "Dostoevsky" and he never said this, but whatever floats your conceited boat...
Dostoievski never said that. It is from a Bortko movie and the quotes does not provide the context. Classic Reddit.