Theme: Truth

  • So in other words, you have no operational means of achieving that end that you

    So in other words, you have no operational means of achieving that end that you claim is superior, and it’s just a fictionalism – a fantasy?


    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-08 20:37:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1877092406333473020

    Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1877091597365494136

  • The first statement is false. All truth is determined by. market competition

    The first statement is false. All truth is determined by. market competition.


    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-07 16:44:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876671222341423255

    Reply addressees: @clement_zach @whstancil

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876606607200804951

  • THE LEFT CAN”T COMPETE ONLY “CHANT” What’s wrong with ‘unregulated’ media when t

    THE LEFT CAN”T COMPETE ONLY “CHANT”
    What’s wrong with ‘unregulated’ media when the previous generation of media was ‘captured’ by your propagandists?
    The Unregulated is just a market competition. Are you saying you folks on the left can’t compete? We know you can’t because you can’t keep a talk show, a social media discussion, or a adult debate running.
    The reason you can’t, is because you cant survive in long form. The reason you can’t survive in long form because you have to make arguments. You can’t. YOu can only either make emotional appeals or emotional undermining.

    Reply addressees: @whstancil


    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-07 01:45:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876444992019001344

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876422393381769456

  • He’s brilliant. As this stunt so thoroughly illustrates. It’s just hysterical ho

    He’s brilliant. As this stunt so thoroughly illustrates. It’s just hysterical how he combines humor and truth to generate messaging, and watches the data that results.


    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-06 23:34:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876411991176438136

    Reply addressees: @plesbilongmi @elonmusk

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876192841267085640

  • Elon knows what he’s doing. And its working. And it’s humorous. Which is part of

    Elon knows what he’s doing. And its working. And it’s humorous. Which is part of his charm. ;). Truth in humor is an art form.


    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-06 23:32:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876411472722665899

    Reply addressees: @Astro_Angry @elonmusk

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876223753673441438

  • Martin being Martin with simple clear and painful truth… lol

    Martin being Martin with simple clear and painful truth… lol https://twitter.com/AutistocratMS/status/1876344454011097454

  • I see no challenge at all. Please present one the content of which is testifiabl

    I see no challenge at all. Please present one the content of which is testifiable rather than a fictionalism. There is little chance I err in any fashion.

    Fear uncertainty and doubt is not an argument but a straw man.


    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-04 07:04:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1875438194805895353

    Reply addressees: @kylebrockmann @drawveloper

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1875380840672207100

  • (Philosophers) WHY DO WE NEED NEW DEFINITIONS AND TERMS? 1) Every philosopher mu

    (Philosophers)
    WHY DO WE NEED NEW DEFINITIONS AND TERMS?

    1) Every philosopher must and does both add terms and alter the properties of terms. Otherwise the function of a philosopher, which is the reorganization of existing categories, relations, operations, and values is impossible. The question is only whether we are increasing precision or decreasing precision. In our case we are increasing precision in order to prevent deceptions.

    2) We remove misrepresentation from terminology by the use of deflation, series, and operational definitions. This means that many terms, when placed in series with related terms, can only ‘fit’ (avoid conflation and misrepresentation) if properties that cause conflation are attributed to one term and not another. By the combination of deflation, isolation of properties, and operational language we all but remove fungibility (use in deception) from terms. Moreover, we eliminate the ability to use deception in the most common manner it is used: the pretense of knowledge where the speaker lacks the knowledge to make the claims he does. Or where he has identified and is making use of a loose relation for the purpose of argument or deduction that does not hold under scrutiny.

    3) All pretense of knowledge and deception is caused by hiding information, partial information, embellishment of information, or incorrect information, causing demand for substitution on the part of the audience, and thereby causing suggestion in the audience.

    4) Suggestion can be used to transfer meaning, which we can then deflate (limit) to truthful propositions. Or suggestion can be used to transfer partial meaning, which we let perform suggestion, or which we expand into falsehood. In other words, we can communicate then limit or we can communication and let the audience expand an idea to unlimited form. Or we can communicate and suggest other limits. And various permutations thereof. So we cannot communicate truthfully without supplying both via positiva (meaning) and via-negativa (limits) so that the competition between meaning and limits allows only potentially true information to survive.

    5) The most successful methods of deception are caused by increasingly *indirect* means of suggestion that cause the audience to perform substitution (fill in the blanks). Advertising (commercial), propaganda(political), and theology(religious) saturation of the environment produces suggestion by deception by the use of overloading the environment. And humans are not able even intentionally to insulate themselves from the free association caused by experiential phenomenon (information). So Advertising, Propaganda, and Theology are methods of deception through deception and overloading.

    6) The use of “-isms”. An “-ism” refers to a portfolio of categories, values, relations that provide decidability within a domain. So an ism is a ‘name’ for an algorithm providing some form of decidability. This ism can be very narrow (Platonism) or very broad (Marxism). The decidability offered can be true, undecidable, or false, or moral, amoral or immoral. But without referring to ‘-ism’s’ one must list the sometimes long sets of arguments (categories, values, and relations) within them.

    So it is ‘shorthand’ to use those terms, just like it is shorthand to use math, logic, geometry, calculus, or family, genus, species, race. And yes, it is burdensome on the reader who is ignorant of the subject – but it is comfortable for both the author and the reader who are knowledgeable.

    The strange question we should contemplate is, “Why do people read other technical literature, which they must look up and understand terms, yet people who will read technical literature – analytic philosophy, making use of law, economics, science, and mathematics – and expect NOT to look up a lot of terms?”

    The answer of course is that we have no choice but to participate in that science we call cooperation: ethics, morality, and politics. While we have the choice to participate in every other scientific discipline.


    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-02 21:01:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1874924122691805184

  • WM. I am not some trivial nitwit. 😉 I’m merely contributing to the conversation

    WM. I am not some trivial nitwit. 😉 I’m merely contributing to the conversation. The subjective is in fact a meaningful method of argument where subjective preference has value in the action or decision. The objective is in fact a method of argument when attempting to determine a system of measurement for deciding matters of conflict between the subjective.
    The first principle of the difference between left and right originates in the sex differences in cognition and valence. This subject is a canonical example of the feminine subjective empathic in-time risk and responsibility evading and oppression appealing vs the masculine objective systematizing over-time risk-tolerant responsibility-seeking and conspiracy appealing differences in perception valence preference and advocacy. This is basic neuroscience with universal application. Unfortunately, the ‘woke’ nonsense is falling into the subjective frame which obscures the fact that the left is objectively engaging in attempted seduction into false promise, baiting into hazard, using female methods of sedition, in order to steal, while hiding under pretense of innocence and compassion. In other words … the right is correct and objectively moral and the left is not. This isn’t an opinion. It’s simply a fact of the sex differences in cognition. The problem is that we have never been in a condition before where the government could be used as aproxy for males to forward the female means of parasitism, sedition, and warfare, and the experiment has run its course.
    All other discourse, including the ‘woke’ nonsense, is just application of the female means of undermining as a means of evading the polarity of the morality of the sex differences. In other words, “gossiping rallying and shaming, ridiculing, outraging, rallying, moralizing, and psychologizing’ which is the female method (and which James makes use of daily, is just a means of distraction from the underlying causality of attempted theft (organize crime by institutional means) and it’s opposite; the right’s policing of it. Unfortunately parasitism sells and responsibility doesn’t. An argument from which universal enfranchisement cannot recover. Either you are capable of bearing the burden of responsibility for self others and commons or you are a parasite upon others – and a criminal.

    Reply addressees: @WolfMcNally


    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-30 19:53:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1873819737442205696

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1873806375744324049

  • The most formidable weapon against errors of reason is demonstrated evidence. 😉

    The most formidable weapon against errors of reason is demonstrated evidence. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-30 03:17:39 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1873569110078169508

    Reply addressees: @philosophytweet

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1873431741953925204