Since Trump repeatedly came back to racism throughout the debate regardless of context, they’re definitely talking about the racism.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

ADHD life.

Context: During the Haitian Revolution, France hired Polish mercenaries to go to Haiti and help with putting the slave rebellion down. After arriving, the Polish mercenaries immediately recognized they had much more in common with the other people being oppressed by major European powers and joined the revolution on the Haitians’ side. After the revolution and because of some of the most severe international sanctions in world history (many of which are still in effect to this day), the Polish mercenaries were now completely Haitian and were legally declared “black” by the new Haitian government.

I have a feeling pizza rolls would be pretty popular in the shire, especially after the second breakfast hobbit leaf pipe.

In your example, you referred to an individual who was easily dismissed by everyone who heard them without exception. If there was nothing to fascist rhetoric, I wouldn’t worry about it. The issue is that it can be very compelling if you are not its victim and don’t have reason to critisize it.

I used fire in my example because even though it can start small, it can spread rapidly. Fascism spreads wherever it’s allowed. I’ve watched it happen and known people who were unprepared become seduced by it. Please don’t assume it’s benign.

I like people and humanity as a whole, but I lack the faith that everyone is a good actor or has good intentions. In theory the negative freedom of not being restricted from creating whatever community one wants on a site is a pleasant idea, but in reality it’s like leaving unlimited matches in a room with a huge number of children where most of them are responsible. There may even be a lot of nice uses of matches but…

Going very well. Getting through some burnout and starting to see some light.

This was my reaction. There has always been a revolution brewing among the discontents. Everyone alive realizing they need to be part of it is late to the party, because the party started long before any of us were born.

Thanks for writing my autobiography is so few words.

The only reason I used the downvote on Reddit was if someone was being anti-social, such as racism or any other ism or just general jerkishness for no good reason. I haven’t seen any of that yet here. When I do I’ll call it out.

I had quite the ontological shock when I was exposed to methods of investigation and information which was systematically collected and reviewed by people who I became familiar at University. My formerly conservative beliefs were shattered under the weight of the scrutiny which I was now able to apply to them, which caused extreme discomfort because many of the premises which I had planned my life around were not only false, but easily disprovable with the slightest examination. Since then I’ve tried not to be stubborn about the beliefs I hold and will criticize new information instead of dismissing it (although some information can be criticized so quickly it can be dismissed rapidly).

There hasn’t been hard evidence presented for the new claims of extraterrestrials on Earth to my knowledge, nor have the claims been disproven (these specific claims can be disproven). I choose to withhold judgement on the phenomenon until a sufficient amount of evidence is provided (in my opinion, I suppose) or the claims are disproven, but I’m not going to dismiss the possibility that the claims are true off-hand.

That particular Kuhn work is one that I often come back to in snippets even though I haven’t read it through yet. It definitely made me aware how much the era I’m living in informs what others and myself consider to be fact. Especially in studying History I find many decisions which people really made completely baffling in a contemporary context, but norms were fundamentally different according to that place and time.

My worldview is not fundamentally different than the Christian worldview you described. Although I have a strong preference for Empiricism, I understand that it’s mostly a subjective preference of mine rather than the ultimate method of epistemology. According to empircal data, application of empirical reasoning has yielded the most consistent with reality conclusions which we have currently made. Every aspect of the previous sentence is loaded and some elements may not be strictly true, but it would require a different method of reasoning to determine that which may not even be compatible. This makes me sympathetic to scientific anarchy even though I have my personal bias towards empiricism above other methodologies. It does make me curious as to what truths I myself am incapable of appreciating due to my practical adherence to material reality and preference for evidence and scientific consensus.

This is very similar to the development I’ve experienced, thank you for sharing the process itself. Our brains naturally chunk information, so the use of schemas to understand abstract concepts I think is completely intuitive. As you pointed out though sometimes a schema can turn out to be an over-simplification which falsely indicates a topic is less complex than it truly is. It’s interesting to look over all of the cognitive traps we’re vulnerable to which we could never escape if we didn’t admit to ourselves we could fall into them.

In our age of misinformation, how do you determine whether the new information is based in reality?

I strongly second the recommendation for the free online class Learning How to Learn. I’ve taken it twice, the second time as a refresher after a few years. It’s light, well presented, easy, and really revolutionized my approach to learning new things.

I’ve been toying with the idea of using that “instances” link at the bottom of this page and exploring each non-blocked instance one at a time and report my findings. When I was a kid before the age of the internet monoliths which exist today I would constantly follow links from one website to another and really enjoyed the process of discovery. I wonder if anyone has already done any Instance delving.

I absolutely agree that to a large degree this is a subjective process which depends on the nature and nurture of the individual forming the belief. It’s likely that the vast majority of the things I believe gained that status due to an automatic process which I am unaware of.

I should specify that the process I detailed is what I would intentionally apply to form a basis for highly consequential personal or political decisions. When it was first posed to me and upon studying the psychology involved, I have wondered whether I would have behaved like the average German did in 1938 despite the official ideology being so obviously vulnerable to scrutiny of any kind. I observe a similar method of epistemology being deployed now notoriously against certain minority groups today which I might have gotten caught up in as a teenager due to my upbringing but know better than to fall for now. I may edit my post to specify forming a belief when one is aware they are forming a belief when multiple interpretations of reality are present which may not even be based on the same set of “facts.”

Regardless of what I’ve professed, I’ve discovered that many of my own beliefs were without basis once they were challenged and likely many still are. This is a very human thing I think about a lot.