Belief and Moore’s paradox

I saw someone point out that PC is mostly Moore’s paradox denying reality.

In case you want to read on the topic of Moore’s paradox.

Click to access SPAWN.pdf

“As Alex Byrne (2005) puts the point, our epistemic access to our own beliefs is both “peculiar” and “privileged”.”

I’d relate this to thought-terminating cliche.

Video: Killing the messenger

Ignoring the “my opinion of science is the correct one 4eva” scientism faux angle.
Ignoring that snarky insinuation.

“You were dangerous.”
When someone has a problem with you telling the truth (say, citing modest stats, no commentary), it isn’t a problem with you, per se.
You’re the fleshy human convenient punching bag.
The Devil with a face. You can’t punch evil in the face.
Victim culture and corruption is fueled with the blood of truth seekers. Think of it as ideological welfare to go with their ideological imperialism (all not-Us people are bad! ~ literally the opinion of bigots, literal definition).

Bigots used to be liars who refused to hear the truth. Problem is, they’d try to ban it from others’ ears too.

It’s mind boggling when they dispute facts.
Not opinions, not skews, but bare, blunt facts.
What could I do? you think. I’m the messenger. I didn’t design any of this reality. You think I enjoy this??? Seriously!?
I’m pointing and describing it. I don’t like it either, but you don’t change things by ignoring them.

Logic.

If logic worked on them, you wouldn’t have to explain it for them. They’d seek the information themselves, we have the internet now. They’d ask you things. Idiots are uppity. If you’re right, and especially if you explain it well, they’ll derail; they’ll slag off your personality (bitchy, rude) or tone (arrogant, condescending). Reaction formation is real.

Save those who want the truth (see Best Post).

Fuck the rest. 

Facts like: there’s no such thing as a free lunch.

Consumption without industry is unnatural and impossible. Barring slavery.

You won’t be able to live off a state pension, and you probably won’t even get one. They’ll slowly phase it out into irrelevance. You’ll be lucky if it can buy a Freddo by the time you retire.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/heres-the-secret-life-of-the-money-in-your-pension-pot-it-will-make-you-angry-a7008676.html

If the minimum wage hike advocates understood maths and economics to know why it’s gonna screw them over, they’d wouldn’t be earning minimum wage.

Stupid people and poor people will always exist. But I repeat myself. You can’t teach someone out of stupidity. The top schools take the top IQ slice. If you leveled everyone, totally equal by force, after a year there would be inequalities based on personal decisions. Equality is the idea that if I can’t succeed, you can’t succeed, because you must be cheating!

Free loaders expect to match the results of the top performer. Participation trophies?

Smart places are dragged down to the weakest IQ in the room i.e. University.

“But it’s fun” is the excuse of every loser in history.

The Government doesn’t solve social problems. It causes social problems.

You pay a premium to live in a low crime homogeneous demographic area in your native country.

You pay for the destructive lifestyles and terrible choices of idiots in your country, and their vote counts as much as yours.

Political Correctness is the method of politicians saying There Are No Harsh Truths.

That’s it.

PC culture revolves around the infantilization of adults making up the Voting Public.
Whichever baby makes the biggest fuss gets the attention.

Wall of Pride

Feel free to send in, we could use more common sense and redpill truth on the internet.

I decided to blank out the real names partially since the SJWs might monster them.

wop1

^ female.

wop2

wop3

wop4

wop5

Fourth wife – so far. If after the first divorce you keep screwing up, it isn’t the women’s fault. You can’t take your marital vows, “until death do you part”, very seriously if you made them more than once. And children? Why would 21st century marriage be about children?

Paper: The Vacuity of Postmodern Methodology (2005)

Click to access SHATVO-2.pdf

Abstract: Many of the philosophical doctrines purveyed by postmodernists have been roundly refuted, yet people continue to be taken in by the dishonest devices used in proselytizing for postmodernism. I exhibit, name and analyse five favourite rhetorical manoeuvres: Troll’s Truisms, Motte and Bailey Doctrines, Equivocating Fulcra, the Postmodernist Fox-trot and Rankly Relativising Fields. Anyone familiar with postmodernist writing will recognise their pervasive hold on the dialectic of postmodernism, and come to judge that dialectic as it ought to be judged.

Sorry for the intermittent disappearances, I’ve been doing damage control around Europe and have to pull up drafts. Since the Cologne thing, things have been getting hectic. I wish I could post pictures of Paris. March is really the best time for it while avoiding many tourists. There are many conventions and political things going on that need my attention, what with the referendum upcoming, so this might hold true for a few months…

The rare times feminists hit on the truth

I wanted to give them a fair hearing. It’s like a tiny grain of sand within the pearl of lies. This refreshing collection took a while to add up.
I like to think of these as Original Feminists, back when they had standards that everyone held to.

12549027_1020301234682070_4174465352468957216_n

THANK YOU.
Honestly folks, it’s that simple. The person committing the crime is the criminal! The innocent person is the victim!
FINALLY.
940931_1022204501158410_829242774044190240_n

The term comes from a guy who wanted to fuck his own mother so badly he assumed every other man in the world must too. Mummy Issues is a thing as much as Daddy Issues. Same for penis envy and womb envy, it’s two sides of the same coin. If one is valid, so is the other.

12509509_1288432604641267_2059716406532880195_n

What often goes unmentioned is the reason for being gradual about it. The pure vitriol women get for putting down a gamma or lower upfront. Another aspect is how romantic relationships are not owed to anyone, and the bitchy type often lie in the beginning about their intentions (like some FWB women), amping up the friend element and leading into “we’re such good friends” and trying to segue into a girlfriend situation. As if we’re stupid.

cuntword

Irony that it took a man to point this out.

assaultanddrinks

It’s never ‘just a drink’. They think they’re buying you. Like a sex slave.
And they think you’re cheap.

At least whores are paid in cash, market rate, based on time and services rendered.
Hook-up culture is just hooker culture, fooling itself.

catcalling

The intended purpose is to make you feel bad because they know you’re out of their league. They know they don’t have a realistic chance so it’s like long-distance negging to prop up their delusions of alpha maleness. Those aren’t men, they act like teenagers. As if feeling SMV-inferior around someone is an excuse to verbally abuse them, they don’t dare pull that on other blokes at the bar or start on women walking with men, weaklings. It came from black culture and it’s hostile there too.
On the flipside, sex attackers often start with a catcall to test the intended victim, to get her to stop, come over here out of public sight, tell him your name so he can stalk you or they get a simple thrill from making a woman fear them, however temporary. The best thing you can do is ignore them or laugh, and that’s why so many women wear headphones nowadays. You don’t give strangers compliments, ever. Women aren’t dumb enough on the whole to try but desperate men think it’s fair game to judge while they’re standing in the street like losers and in addition, they think it makes them look less desperate for any female attention (no).

Solution? If you must express appreciation, a simple, single wolf-whistle.
That’s it. No words. No words are needed and you’ll screw it up.

12541115_1032880563445449_1806870584443679452_n

Literally me. Turns out they still blamed it on white men. For letting them in?

12573962_1020757527969774_4469542575472964008_n

There is no continuum or scale. It’s have or have not.
Sex is consensual. Without it, that’s the crime of rape. Whatever the sex of the initiator, I might add.

12615548_1021155484596645_2617871818339386548_o

There is a responsibility on men to know the difference between assertive and aggressive.
Former is romantic, latter is illegal (test: would you try those actions on a man who could physically equal you?).

12646809_1021597047885822_4040475063028680711_o

They rape women in hijabs. They raped women in petticoats. That’s like saying never buy anything nice and expensive in case you get mugged or burgled, it’s no way to live. This is the First World and we all have the right to show skin (including topless men) without being stoned to death. The responsibility for self-control lies with the tempted party. Feral males need to stop blaming women for their own weaknesses. Note: women groping stranger men is also wrong, the other side of Eve Teasing.

12647221_1022203891158471_6579726465610768773_n

Happened a lot during those days. Happens to this day when people have the excuse of alcohol (in studies, people act drunk with placebo drinks). They retain responsibility for their actions (including drinking within their limits) if they’re sober enough to enact them in the first place. Sober enough to do it? Sober enough to know better. Grabbing and kissing someone who isn’t interested ain’t right. Being in a club isn’t an excuse either, you wouldn’t be able to behave like that in a brothel ffs.

maleentitlement

Men can handle rejection as time saved. Boys take it personally.
Men have more experience of interpersonal rejection than women, usually. However, they also have more interpersonal opportunities as the approaching party.

means out of your league

I’ve heard some lower status men dispute the existence of leagues.
The veiled term men use for a woman out of their league is ‘high maintenance’, among others.

myreligion

Includes all belief, including political.
from the “You can’t call her Bruce!” pronoun people

objecticatoninmedia

Men say they’d be totally fine about male objectification until it happens.
Then they point and shriek like banshees because it makes them feel insecure…..
….. and how do you think we feel?

Get over it, like we do. Woman up. Stop taking it so personally. We probably aren’t comparing you to underwear models, because let’s face it, you’d lose.

takingitpersonal

Another stellar example of “You’re proving our point for us.”

We predict you’ll do XYZ when we use the male trigger word ‘misogyny’ in any context.

*XYZ happens*

Told ya so. 

Quit being so bloody predictable, if you didn’t feed them with instances of trolling or insults, they’d fizzle out and get real jobs.

Misogyny has recently made otherwise sensible men a laughing stock in the public eye, it practically makes them foam at the mouth whatever the bones of the argument being discussed. They lose it. Aren’t they meant to be the rational ones, as they claim?

r-types and arguments

http://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/we-are-now-at-the-point-in-this-argument-where-i-realize-i-am-wrong

If you’re playing by Queensberry rules using logic and the other guy is fighting dirty and kicks sand in your eyes, he will always win.

At this point, I’m no longer connected to my actual values, but instead the pure animalistic desire to be better than another person. You’re still playing with everything to lose. I wish I could just say you’re right — I really do — but my lizard like brain is defensive and you’ve attacked me. I can see in your eyes how much you actually care about not only this issue, but also how much you care about me. I’m actually kind of sad for you.

snort lol laugh haha hmph derision yeah duh really uhuh mhmm princess bride

Subhuman, see it? Zero intellectual honesty, no searching for truth, no emotional sincerity whatsoever. They’re bullies looking for someone to verbally kick. The ‘debate’ is a framework, they broke the rules first by entering with dishonest intentions. Morally, you’re clean.
They don’t feel genuine pity or remorse (except for themselves, hardly genuine). They know the words but not the music, as is often said of sociopaths.
When in debate with a person like this, do not let them go. Do not let them wriggle out. Amygdala hijack them over and over again as hard as you can and wait for them to crack before they run (you’ll know when they crack, you’ll just know). You screw them down and crush them (h/t Greene) or they will go after other innocent people. When they run away by choice (which requires cracking first), they don’t come back. It triggers their childhood rejection schema. When they are crushed, they think twice the next time they want to start trouble. If enough people do this, they stop altogether. It’s a moral duty to create this outcome if you may.

Know how I know this?
How I can tell the damaged ones on-sight? Partly experience, partly….

In the future, I will perhaps be calmer and admit my wrongdoing. However, more likely, I will add this moment to the large list of times I’ve been wrong and let it be erased from my memory. When you mention it again, I will pretend it never even happened.

MEMORY BLACKOUTS ARE NOT NORMAL. 

I believe AC covered them in r-type narcissists/sociopaths.

He genuinely believes all of that, because that is what he remembers, even if he doesn’t remember a single phrase or idea Klingenstein said to him (which I am sure he doesn’t).

False memories up the wazoo.

(It should be noted, if attempting an amygdala hijack, and your opponent successfully meme-ifies you in their mind, your hijack will fail, because they will no longer be listening. In such a case, you must de-meme-ify yourself in their head, by identifying how they meme’d you, and then showing exactly how wrong they are using pure logic, in an argument made to the crowd of observers watching. Once you are no longer racist, etc. to the crowd, they look silly for thinking that, and they are back paying attention, continue to out-group and humiliate, in a calm and reasoned fashion.)

and here

The first time I realized he had real problems was the day after he did something weird right in front of me. The next day I asked him why he did it, and he looked at me confused. “I never did that! Not only didn’t I do that…. I would never do that!” His voice rose to a crescendo, his arms waved in the air, and his insistence, combined with the genuinely puzzled and confused look on his face, made me think he literally didn’t remember doing something very memorable the day before. Otherwise, how could he deny it, and think I would acquiesce?

…This was my first clear introduction to the concept of “False Reality.” Narcissists inhabit what is called a false reality. In this false reality, they are as near to perfect as a human being could possibly be. Of course this false reality usually diverges from real reality, where they often will have difficulty in the simplest of relationships over the long term – and most who know them well view them as, for lack of better words, evil, damaged, and crazy.

Everyone else is screwed up, even people they used to sing the praises of, suddenly stories of secret abuse and “deserving” bad things come out. It’s warped to watch them. Highly disturbing.

Something common I’ve had: They claim correcting them on the inappropriateness of personal issues in reasoned debate is abuse. That you are abusing them by using logic. Seriously.

pause stop wait what is going on confused da vinci demons leonardo

n.b. I realize this site is comedy but it really nails the mindset.

Video: Coping with the dregs of humanity

As Anonymous Conservative has spent literally a whole book intoning, the only thing r-type idiots understand is mockery and rejection from the ingroup. If mocked well and enough, they will go quiet. Perhaps some of the brighter ones will do some research or listen to counterarguments. You are doing them a favour by mocking them. Don’t be cruel, there is rarely a need, but don’t be a pushover either.

One of the worst things you could do is treat them as your intellectual equal, they haven’t the merit. They cannot process what you say on the whole, just what you do. If you must speak reason, talk down to them until they’ve made it clear they understand (read: never, if they got it they’d believe it too). If you’ve reached the end of your tether, remember their flavoured choice of terrible decision-making will give them a terrible life, decades of suffering and you can’t say they don’t deserve it if they’re the brattish entitled type who starts these things. You don’t have a duty to go around rescuing people from themselves (unless you literally do, in which case I say: be HIGHLY selective and expend the resource of your time as if it has value, you aren’t a tax-exempt charity, you’re a human being).

The internet has acted as a microphone to the most attention-whoring vapid segments of society which would otherwise go unheard by the rest of us. This is why I often cover the content of other people, preferential to my own. It isn’t arrogance or keeping myself back from the fray, I would rather draws on hundreds of perspectives for empirical reasons.

No Noooooo are you kidding me wtf are you testing me satan
If you are concerned in a misanthropic vein, the advice I would give is to recollect how rare this present situation is and how few in number these (loud) people truly are. Cultural, political, sociosexual etc. All they have is noise. We are in the eye of the storm, through the looking glass, down the rabbithole etc. Change is the only inevitability in history. Will you adapt? Darwin states you will survive. What are you worrying about? Why have empathy for people who wish your destruction? Did their pleas of the ‘nobility’ of self-loathing affect you? Would you put a gun to your own head for them? What are we fighting for here?

You owe it to yourself to answer these questions in your mind and decide on sufficient convictions. I shan’t tell you what to think.

I like this guy’s voice btw. Good RP, OP. Accent game strong.

yes nod sup Lestat IWTV film uhuh I know

 

Logical rudeness in debates

When your opponent isn’t using logic? Or reality? Or objectivity?

http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/rudeness.htm

(Logical rudeness)…Unlike a petitio, it does not purport to justify a conclusion or belief; it purports to justify believers in disregarding criticism of their beliefs as if such criticism were inapplicable, irrelevant, or symptomatic of error. This is not self-justification in the manner of a petitio, in which assumed premises can validly imply the disputed conclusion.

Sum: If somebody isn’t playing by the rules of formal debate, they bring the whole thing down and might be excluded.

…”Philosophers have no equivalent of default except the presumption that the silent or rude theorist has no answer on the merits to offer, and (qua individual proponent) may be presumed ignorant or incorrect and dismissed. This presumption, however, is very legalistic, and in many cases will be false.”…

Practice of Law =/= ” ” Science

It may seem that the imputation of a foible or fault to a critic simply qua critic is always optional, never necessary to preserve the consistency of the theory or the good faith of the proponent. But this is not true. First, there is the case of the brazen theory which includes as a tenet the forthright equation of disagreement and error. This tenet is not as rare, nor probably as naive, as one might at first suspect. It may be called (using legal jargon) the “exclusivity clause” of the theory. Any theory may have an exclusivity clause, and most theories may have them without contradicting their own content. The “clause” merely states that the set of tenets comprising the theory is the truth and the only truth on its precise subject. It does not imply completeness; but it does imply that propositions inconsistent with the theory are false. It may be tacit and understood, and indeed it does seem to follow from the mere claim of truth according to the principle of excluded middle (tacit in many theories) and most classical notions of truth. If a theory contains an exclusivity clause, even a tacit one, it impels the good faith proponent to equate disagreement and error. Critics may courteously be indulged in the realm of debate, and cajoled into seeing the light, if possible, but that would be supererogatory under the canons of logic and good faith. One premise of “civilized” debate —that any contender might be speaking the truth and debate is one way to tell who— is not shared by all the contenders. For this reason it is disturbing to note that almost any claim to truth may bear a tacit exclusivity clause.

If you are being purely logical and the other person comes up with a personal story, you can, in most instances, rightfully call them an idiot for using that as a parry to your point. It’s like bringing a spoon to a knife fight.

Even more disturbing is the case of philosophical systems. The paradigm of good philosophy for several western traditions —the complete, consistent system— is impelled to be rude….

If the system is supposed to be complete as well as true, then the good faith proponent must believe the critic in error, and therefore must apply the system’s explanation of error to her. Note that mere belief in the completeness and truth of the system suffices here to justify the conclusion that disagreement is error. The good faith proponent need not immediately act on this belief in the critic’s error, but neither can he escape concluding it, any more than he could willingly suspend judgment on the truth of his beliefs. Proponents of what are supposed to be true, complete, consistent systems must choose between apostasy and rudeness. [DS: rude people tell the truth] They must defend their beliefs either by appeal to premises and principles from outside the system, which they believe are false, or by appeal to premises and principles from withing the system, which is question-begging and liable to be very rude. [demonstration of depth of explanation] This may be called the dilemma of systematic self-defense. To ask such a believer to be logically polite “just for the sake of argument” is equivalent to asking him to give up some tenets of the faith he wishes to defend just to enter a realm of debate to defend it. This is why systems with pretensions to completeness have traditionally seemed rude, have traditionally authorized rude defenses in their proponents, or have gone undefended at fundamental levels….

…Logical rudeness may be considered a complex form of ad hominem argument. It tells critics and dissenters that they are defective human beings whose ignorance or error is well explained as frailty, fault, foible, or the absence of a boon. Moreover, this form of ad hominem is justified by the theory under attack. When our questions are answered by ad hominem assaults, we are angered. Our anger cannot be reduced to hurt feelings because we were not merely wounded in our dignity; we were put off in our inquiries for truth by a refusal to cooperate. A rude response can therefore trigger three levels of indignation: personal affront, thwarted cooperation, and crippled inquiry. The first is personal, the second social and political, and the third epistemic.

..Some form of rudeness seems inevitable. Either the equality principle will be violated by the rude theory that critics are unequally entitled to know the truth, [as if equally capable of understanding, psychometrics be damned] or the freedom principle will be violated by the rude theory that critics are making impermissible moves in a game. These two fundamental types of rudeness can be barred only by one another. To secure some courtesies, then, we must impose other rude principles. There is something Gödelian about this result. No system of logical etiquette can be both complete and consistent. For every such system there will be a permissible but rude theory. ….

…..The automatic inference of falsehood from rudeness or undebatability may be called the fallacy of petulance —in which we peevishly allow our hurt feelings to supersede our better judgement. The fallacy of petulance is to use the criteria of courtesy as criteria (or as a subset of the criteria) of truth. Sociability in debate may be important for many reasons, even for the fundamental epistemic reason of keeping debate a fruitful avenue of inquiry and for basic ethical duties to other inquirers; but its norms do not thereby become criteria of truth. ……

….The danger of legislating a style of thinking in order to secure a form of cooperation is real.  ….

Trigger warnings, anyone?

What is Rose Reasoning?

Copied from: http://firstworldfeminism.tumblr.com/post/105590767098/rose-reasoning
As you can see from this beautiful picture;

A rose is a wave where the curve loops away from the origin of the graph, before passing back through and continuing with the same process until the shape is eventually closed off by meeting up with the starting point, where it would be tracing over the existing shape if continued.

The many segments of the rose will typically meet and overlap at the same point, resembling the petals of a flower.

Rose reasoning is an expansion of circular reasoning, that the argument will always be on an infinite loop as the defendant won’t properly justify their stance, thus the argument cannot rationally conclude.

No matter how many arguments you make, they respond with the same illogical point and you return to square one.  Each argument is represented by the curve of a petal, with the point of origin of the rose being their response.