zurew

I think there is a good chance that he was a leftist (as far as I know we still dont know his exact motivations why he did it), but there can be many contributing factors why he did it. If you have leftist values, you dont need to hear any mainstream or alternative media leftist labeling Charlie Kirk a fascist to be outraged by him. I dont think that labelign him a fascist was a main contributing factor, it was much more about the actual positions he held and the rhetoric he used. Also just the same way I could just randomly pick other random facts about his life and speculate that those were the main contributing factors - like attacking mormons and conservative familys , and claim that the reason why he became the way he did, is because of the conservatives methods and how they raised him. For example, when it comes to trans issues, regardless how you want to categorize them (whether you want to claim they have mental illness or not , the reality is that most conservatives including trump and charlie never cared about them - like imagine if you think they are actually mentally ill, then why not ever talk about treatments and why only obsess about girl dick and about attacking their identity - in what other context would we be okay with attacking mentally ill people? ) And again this is only if we go with the idea that they are mentally ill , even though I know very easy ways to cash out why not all of them are mentally ill and how you can be a trans person without needing to claim any false thing or be delusional about anything.

You didnt "question" things , you were using rhetoric and smugness while being ignorant about certain facts (which wouldnt be an issue, if you wouldnt have been smug about it and a "just asking questions guyys" while not actually caring about the answer). "I dont understand whats the left's issue with Kirk LoL" isn't an honest inquiry and you know that - this is why I called you dishonest and the reason why I called you spineless and no balls is because you pretended that you used devil's advocate once you realized you were looking very silly being your honest self. Your actual honest position is that you think Kirk was a good guy and also that either the left is worse or just as bad as the right - none of that is playing devil's advocate for you, so you shouldn't pretend otherwise. There is also a reason why you had such an emotional response to the video @Recursoinominado posted, you almost immediately banned a guy for posting a very recent video (that you claimed to be old, which is wrong, it was posted 1 day ago). And once again to the centrist, high consciousness, unbiased virtue signalers - being a centrist doesnt mean that you both sides every issue , rather that you call out things as they are and if one side is much worse than the other, then you stick to that and dont pretend otherwise. Nothing is centrist about claming that the guy who shit his pants is as smelly as a guy who didn't shower for 1 day.

@Leo Gura Next time you will call people rats again I will remember how much you actually care about namecalling and sticking things to the guidelines you dont abide by. Infinitely rewarding narcissistic and dishonest behavior and demotivating people from calling it out is also a good norm to uphold here, it will do wonders to the quality of the conversations.

I dont know what that means and what "intelligent" breakdown means in that statement. You probably think that the maintream breakdown is stupid, because you cant imagine that Fuentes actually embraced a bunch of those views. Imagine being a slave saying "let me not call my slaveowner a slaveowner, because thats violent rhetoric and let me also hear him out and do a conscious deconstruction and articulation of his views, because we are doing conscious multiperspectival politics here bro" What do you mean, what kind of democrats do you think are endorsing those views, like where is the support and tolerance for this? Surely you wont show me views where by socialist they meant something wildly different and by their ideas they meant something wildly different right? Surely you wont betray your incredibly high standard how words and terms are defined and you will look for the exact same level nuance and granularity cashing out the term socialist and communist and antifa and you wont just assume the worst case scenario and put that meaning behind all the cases when that term comes up or when someone embraces these terms , right?

Phrasing it this way sounds more accurate . If he said something like this that sounds like that he actually changed his view on it (assuming he didnt lie) Im guessing here, but my assumption is that he would be for some kind of white democracy, where only could white people vote and or be elected.

That doesnt sound like a view change, that sounds like seeing pragmatic and implementation issues, but that doesnt mean that he wouldnt go for it if he would have the pragmatic means to do so. Its like some socialist saying that socialism is a foolish fairytale because other countries would need to play by those rules as well.

Wait what do you think wouldn't be applicable to Fuentes from your list? Surely you dont think that he is for democracy, right?

You can label them and also do all the things you said, they are not mutually exclusive. Its like saying "dont label the actual Hitler a nazi, because thats dangerous bro, just win against hitler in the marketplace of ideas". You guys need to engage with the fact that people are violent not just because of some label ,but because the ideas and beliefs that particular person holds and the actual plans he executes. Like imagine saying that the reason why they went after Hitler is because the nazi label, and not because the ideas he had and the actual plans he executed.

I think Destiny's response is stupid and doesnt even work even taking all his main premises for granted (and I agree mostly with some of those premises). For example lets say that its true that the vast majority on the right and who voted for Trump are actually in a completely sealed media bubble and facts doesnt matter, what matters is what the media tells them, because thats going to be the facts for them - This was his argument to establish that the condemnation of the shooting doesnt matter, because no amount of condemnation is enough when: 1) The alternative reality painted by the right wing media about your political party is such that there is no set of actions that could lift the hatred that they have towards democrats (Like if you actually believe that all democrats are acting in an evil way, and the election was actually stolen and the vax was actually generated to kill people and to fuck with people and all higher up people are after you, global warming is a lie and your party and only Trump can save everyone from the corrupt and evil people etc , then why would you care about condemnations?) 2) There basically no condemnation (especially by mainstream figures) and chill on the right all usage of violent rhetoric is always excused, no matter how disgusting or violent the jokes and the nicknames and the accusations are. Thats all fine, but none of that is an argument to do what Destiny did, because you want to affect non-voters to vote for your party. This move is just playing into the black pill hopeless fatigue non-voters have about politics. And sure he can make the claim that "if those non voters cant bother to do the necessary research to clearly recognize that the two sides are not even remotely same, then its actually good for democracy to end and for everything to get even more fucked" - but if thats your position then why bother to do any poltical action at all and why stream about politics ? So as long as the position is taken that its still worth to try to make non-voters to vote, then make all the moves that make it more likely (and that doesnt mean that you need to pretend that both sides are the same - you can say that you condemn political violence and also say that the right is much worse when the selectively outraged piers morgan panel comes up). And you can also scorch the right for incting violence and calling for war - these things are all compatible , so you can both reinforce that the behavior the right engages in is very much not okay and also have the chance to affect non-voters.

Oh in that case it was all memes on my side as well - just playin around , treating these things as a playing ground and as a tool to exercise and to virtue signal my enlightened mind - just as how unserious these issues needs to be taken, since no one is affected by them . .... No normal conservative (who actually holds any conservative values would want to be associated with Trump and his acolytes and would ever vote for Trump), the right now is the opposite of whatever a healthy conservative would stand for. and if you want to make an honest comparison dont take fringe communist beliefs and compare that to the right, take the collection of democrat beliefs on issues and then compare them with the right. These two groups collectively arent even remotely the same when it comes to delusion. The mature move is what Biden and Obama did - not being okay with political violence and explicitly talking about it that its not okay - but for this you dont have to pretend that the left is worst. And just to be clear - Obama is being scorched by conservatives for saying at the end of his speech that he doesnt agree with charlie's political views (after talking about that political violence is not okay and after explicitly condemning the shooting) - while on the right they are calling for war - and not talking about fringe insane random rigtoids - talking about elon musk, and a lot of mainstream and alternative media right wing figures where each has hundreds of thousands (and in some cases millions) of following.

Good one dude, another good round of engagement. Your claim was surely that there is some amount of promotion of violence on the left (like what a fucking weak claim, like how could that even be false, anyone can find any insane random person who includes him/herself in the same political party as you are), and not that there is at least as much (in fact you said more) than on the right. Once you can take your balls and actually own up to what you said and dont shift claims and goalposts I will engage with you again, but until then good luck with being the spineless ,dishonest enlightened centrist who only exclusively has issues with the left. Mr "being apolitical and contemplating and understanding multiple different perspectives and being above bias" can only fucking entertain one explanation and one contributing factor and cant imagine and entertain with his God-like enlightened awareness that there is any other explanation other than the promotion of violence on the left. Again as much as you like to treat these things as just memes because you are unaffacted by them - getting your rights taken away, getting deported arent memes to people. Being mentally ill is another explanation and getting called evil, fascist, communist by Trump and both by mainstream and non-mainstream right wing media is another , seeing the promotion of racist things by the president of the united states and his acolytes (including charlie) is another and there are other possible explanations and contributing factors - but even if you are right that he did it mainly because of lefist propaganda, that still wouldnt establish your claim about the left being worst than the right.

No you are doing the 2 digit IQ, spiritually insecure ,epistemic caretaker is warranted move - where you are desperate to virtue signal how above all biases you are, and where you think you are higher than everyone, while you are completely out of your depth on every fucking single issue, you are ignorant about everything and try to infer your way through everything and curiously as an "apolitical" person you only exclusively have issues with one side and you firmly hold the position that the left is worst and you think you look enlightened and good doing it. You arent offering multiple perspectives, because you dont even know what the actual facts are that you would need to use to form perspectives from - thats how fucking behind you are. You would need to do basic reading to even begin to have a seat in this discussion. This thread is about other people informing you about facts that you should have known a long fucking time ago and your response is immediate whitewashing and excuse making and not actually doing your homework.

I dont understand why you need to be this dishonest. This why no one should take your "Im open to change my view on this" seriously. This is what happened - you made a snarky comment of "I dont understand why the left has issues with charlie lol", and you also tried to glorify him and when you are faced with facts about what charlie said, suddenly by good you meant something extremely different (a notion of good that could be applied to hitler as well - no honest actor would use the term good this way) and suddenly everything is relative and you also said that his comment about Biden's assasination and imprisonment was taken out of context, because he must have had a good justification for it? Do you even know what taken out of context means? Because it seems to be that you dont. Also notice that you would never ever accept that kind of response to any other thing and its a brainless response that someone makes when you arent read up on the facts. Surely you would accept the response of " the shooter must have had a good justification to do what he did" , right? Of course you wouldn't, thats why you implied that the left is insane and out of their minds. When confronted with facts about what the right did "they must have a good justification for it and its out of context bro" , when the left does something they are out of their minds plain and simple. Also before knowing about the facts you already made up your mind about the shooter and about his intentions and about the causal factors behind his intention. Thats mr Inliytened1 doing politics in action, like a true MAGA conservative - whitewashing facts about the right and mistaking the conclusion of your inferences with facts. To you this is all just memes and lols to other people it isnt. How about once in your life you actually fucking stop for once and take time to actually read up on things before you do you casual ignorant whitewashing and bothsiding? No one cares about your centrist virtue signaling, if you arent read up on things, its time to do it - you know like how any responsible adult would do. Its time to stop the "Im in my armchair infering my way through politics without knowing any facts about anything".

This is at the very least as cringe as people were who glorified george floyd being a good guy. No he wasnt, just the same way you shouldnt glorify charlie the dishonest propagandist kirk.

The Bible is the biiggest issue not his rhetoric about racist shit and about Bidens assasination and making fun of George floyd and Paul pelosi and more, but no one who voted for trump gives a single fuck about any of this . I dont even know why you would ever pretend that you care and that we should think that you hold any principle at all, when you are mad at randoms on this forum and on twitter but okay with repiblicans doing and saying whatever they want while spouting your uninformed nonsense about the left being worse. This whole thing is fucking embematic of the vast majority of conservatives , its just about vibe politics. Like you are here to pretend anyone should learn anything from you while you are completely unread on everything politics related.

For the doubters - this dude's story is consistent with his past posts (talking about his post from 1-2 years ago) He claimed to be a math guy back then, and he showed clear signs that he knew what he was talking about. I have no reason to doubt what he is saying here. Congrats dude, very impressive!

But have you considered @Inliytened1's feelings about edgy college kids on twitter saying bad stuff? "Sure the president of the united states, congressmen and women, judges and all rightwing influencers both in mainstream and in non-mainstream media have been advocating for war and saying that it is a fight between good and evil, and that all democrats are fascists, evil , communists , want to take away your rights, and want to destroy everything etc, but have you considered that the left is worst because of college kids on twitter, bro?" "And sure Biden and Barack Obama and other mainstream democratic figures all stated to calm down and to chill, and Donald Trump made justifications for why and how only the left is responsible for the existence of far right people, but again have you considered edgy college kids twitter though?" "And sure 80% on the right still believes that the 2020 election was stolen , but again have you considered that extremely fringe violent minority on the left though?"

Thats good - dont take a position on it unless you have more clarity on it and much better understanding about it - lets just say there is a lot that you can learn about many different kind of logics and on meta logic as well. The lay folk understanding and intuition on logic is bad and without reading up on it you will make bad inferences about it (and this includes the law of identity as well, and includes what kind of implications would come from the law of identity being false) All I can confidently say is that the law of non-contradiction is one law that not all academic philosophers who specialize in logic accept - some of them suggest that there are some true contradictions ( for example this usually includes the liars paradox)

Generally speaking, nothing. You dont need to be able to explicitly define the meaning behind terms in a 100% precise way in order for classical or propositional logic to "work". As long as the sense behind letters or terms is used in a consistent way (there is no equivocation), and as long as your statement is truth apt (your statement can be true or false), there shouldnt be an issue. In fact this is one reason why logic is useful - because you can use it for abstract operations, where you can replace letters or phrases (in this case "a") with anything and it will still work. For example you can derive contradictions from someone's worldview without even knowing the meaning behind their words (again assuming that their statements are truth apt and also assuming that they arent engaging in equivocation) As a sidenote - I would be careful with attaching special metaphysics behind any given logic. The term "logic" is ambiguous, because there are many different kind of logics. You dont need to take any stance on the ontology of any given logic in order for that logic to be useful. Im personally inclined to say that statements like "logic exists" is meaningless and isnt even truth apt.

@UnbornTao You are not engaging and not answering questions, you are just running the zen script as a default. I dont disagree with your main points about enlightenment and about the importance of direct consciousness when it comes to enlightenment - that never was the point. I also agree that when it comes to questions that enlightement can answer, we should do enlightement work and we shouldn't philosophize about those questions. But the question is this: Are there questions about metaphysics that cant be answered using direct consciousness? If the answer is yes, and you want to have an answer and want to investigate those questions (questions that would be in that set) - then you will need to use a different epistemic approach. If you dont care about questions that might be in that set - cool, but others might be. Now to answer the "what kind of questions?" - I can name a few, but we should be able to entertain this without naming any particular question (without naming any particular member of the set), we could just talk about the properties of the set that contains all questions that have the necessary attributes (attribute like "cant be investigated/answered using direct consciousness"). For example: Maybe questions regarding solipsism are in that set. So if questions regarding solipsism cant be answered through direct consciousness, then giving the reply of "just have awakenings bro or have more enlightenments bro" , that isnt at all responsive to the issue at hand and completely misses the point (unless you actually know that enlightement can give one an answer about solipsism and you dont just assume that enlightement can answer questions about solipsism). If you categorize questions about solipsism as relative, thats fine, but I would still categorize those questions under metaphysics - but regardless how you categorize these questions - the point is that if these questions cant be answered by direct consciousness, awakening, enlightenment, then you need a different epistemic approach to try to investigate these questions. The other point is this: Do you actually know what questions enlightenement can answer in principle or do you just have a basic unjustified assumption that tells you that enlightenment can answer all questions about metaphysics? Can you recognize how in this case appealing to enlightement doesnt give an answer to this question? By having enlightements at best you will only recognize some of the questions that can be answered by direct consciousness, but you never establish that the set I described is empty. Even if you had a 100 enlightements (where each enlightement answered you 1 question about metaphysics), that doesnt establish that the set is empty, that only shows that enlightenement can answer 100 questions about metaphysics. For you to hold the position that enlightement can categorically answer all questions about metaphysics, you would need to make an inference (you would infer from enlightement being able to answer some questions about metaphysics, to enlightement being able to answer all questions about metaphyics) - and the point we start to talk about inferences, you are suddenly subject to be wrong and you are in philosophy territory that you categorize as "speculation and useless".

I didnt contest that. Sure under how you use 'worthless' and 'speculation' maybe, but again you didnt respond to any of the problems I raised, where philosophy and more specifically abductive reasoning shines. The point never was that one can access absolute truth through intellectual means, one point was that there are metaphysical questions that seemingly cant be answered just by the appeal to the absolute truth. For example "everything is mind" - that proposition is compatible with both solipsism and Kastrup's idealism, so in this specific case an appeal to absolute truth wouldnt be useful for finding out which metaphysical framework is true - which is why I labeled this as an underdetermination issue. So the question is - what are you going to do about metaphysical questions that are in principle cant be answered by direct experience, falsification, testing? - you can ignore them and label them as "speculation" or anything you want, but those questions will still remain unanswered, and sure if you dont want to investigate those questions through other epistemic means (something other than direct consciousness), thats fine, but you grouping all those other epistemic approaches together under 'speculation' is still myopic and lacks nuance imo.

@UnbornTao I dont see how that engages with what I said. Whats the response to the issue about truths that are untestable and unfalsifiable in principle? Whats the reponse to the issue about enlightenment,absolute truth being compatible with multiple different kind of metaphysical frameworks?

Can you elaborate more on what you mean by meta-metaphysical?

If your definition of usefulness is "something that increases consciousness" - then yeah they are useless, but I dont share that kind of definition (I use the term 'useful' in a much broader way). I also think thats a very reductive view of things and you miss a whole lot of nuance. Applying your approach to philosophy of science would be like saying that using the scientific process is as effective in finding out relative facts about the world as dancing around the fire 5 times , since they are all just "guesses". The problem is this: If you grant that there are truths that are in principle untestable and unfalsifiable, then you need to use an epistemic process which is not about testing or falsification. So the answer to your question of "what are they useful for beyond those things?" - they are useful for finding out truths that cant be discerned in principle through falsification or testing. The relevant question that needs to be answered is this: Why should anyone think that having enlightenment/awakening experiences is only possible under one specific metaphysics? The reason why the answer to that question would be super relevant, is because as long as they are possible under multiple different kind of metaphysics , there will be an underdetermination issue and appealing to enlightenment to settle questions about metaphysics wont be sufficient. For example - can you have the same enlightenment experience if solipsism is true just like the same way if Bernardo Kastrup's idealism is true? Because if the answer is yes, then obviously to settle which one is true cant be settled by merely appealing to enlightenment.

All Zen takes place under a set of presupposed metaphysical assumptions. You never escape these philosophical debates - hence they are very far from being worthless. The ability to become directly conscious of X already presupposes a frame that makes ' becoming directly conscious ' possible. And as long as there are multiple frames that are compatible with providing that possibility, you will have an underdetermination problem that you won't "solve" without doing philosophy and these seemingly worthless conceptual battles.