this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2023
16 points (94.4% liked)
GenZedong
4298 readers
162 users here now
This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.
This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.
We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.
Rules:
- No bigotry, anti-communism, pro-imperialism or ultra-leftism (anti-AES)
- We support indigenous liberation as the primary contradiction in settler colonies like the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel
- If you post an archived link (excluding archive.org), include the URL of the original article as well
- Unless it's an obvious shitpost, include relevant sources
- For articles behind paywalls, try to include the text in the post
- Mark all posts containing NSFW images as NSFW (including things like Nazi imagery)
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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
💯
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.