HOME | DD
paradigm-shifting β Questioning And Denying
by
Published: 2020-02-29 09:23:57 +0000 UTC; Views: 759; Favourites: 17; Downloads: 1
Redirect to original
Description
"It is no measure of health to become well adjusted to a profoundly sick society" -Jiddu KrishnamurtiRelated content
Comments: 20
For a while and when I could safely get away with doing it, I would tell these 'thought police' types - "I'm not afraid to die for my beliefs. . .are you afraid to die for yours?"
π: 0 β©: 1
Reminds me of an unofficial but more accurate definition of revolution: when the fear of living exceeds the fear of dying.Β
π: 0 β©: 0
Shh, dude! Everyone knows the thought police can't handle truly different viewpoints!
π: 0 β©: 1
π: 0 β©: 1
Off to gulag to never return!
π: 0 β©: 0
Only when they contradict someone's idealogy does the false equivalency get pushed
π: 0 β©: 1
Sprinkle in some hypocrisy and double standards and you've got yourself and Orwellian Shit Cake!
π: 0 β©: 0
Thank you for the post. Good point to counter those who like to shut down discussions with the simply label of denier .
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah, it is like the more polite version of
OMG UR A RACIST! AND UR SEXIST! AND LITERALLY HITLER! I'M SO #TRIGGERED ! OMG UR MICRO-AGGRESSIONS LEAD TO MICRO-OPPRESSIONS!
π: 0 β©: 0
1984 + Brave New World + Idiocracy: On steroids.Β
π: 0 β©: 0
If you start "questioning" well-evidenced truths... well, let's say you're questioning whether the earth is round or flat. That doesn't make you a brave truth-seeker, it just makes you a moron who can't accept very basic, very simple facts. If what you question is already settled, then you are more than likely a denier.
π: 1 β©: 1
I disagree. Questioning someone doesn't make anyone necessarily brave or a truth seeker. I think most people who use terms like that in these contexts are likely egotists more than anything. Anything that is solidly evidenced can stand up to questioning, so there is no reason to fear or shun any questioning. Questioning is also how humans learn and grow. Yes, idiots do exist, but that does not mean people should not have the right to question, simply because idiots exist.
It is also historical fact that in all of history, the well evidenced facts of those times were later found to not be quite as factual as people had thought. If the science of anything is ever final, then it is no longer science -- it borders on religion.
What is accepted, rejected, allowed to be discussed and not allowed to be discussed has always been dependent upon the mindsets of the people in conjunction with whatever the ruling authorities have wanted.
Once upon a time, the Earth being flat was well evidenced science. Then, the sun revolved around the Earth and that was well evidenced science. Now, the Earth revolved around the sun and that is well evidenced science.Β
Matter was once thought to be solid like balls hitting pins, now most science acknowledges that matter is 100% energy, including empty space. This means solidity is actually an illusion. Illusion does not mean it is fake or doesn't exist, it just means it does not operate the way it seems to upon deeper inspection. And yet, even though this knowledge about matter and energy is real science, there are even still some within the scientific community who still reject it, because there are a lot of other possible implications that arise from this that they find psychologically and emotionally disturbing, and they don't enjoy having their personal sense of reality turned on it's head.
Besides, I think very simply we can break all of these things down to freedom vs totalitarianism. Either you're for freedom, or you're not. And if you're not, then you are for totalitarianism. With freedom, people have the right to think, feel, believe, express and question as they wish -- regardless of how allegedly distasteful or perhaps even stupid any of that may or may not be.Β
Without the freedom and the right to the public discourse that freedom allows, then there is no process of good ideas winning over bad ones. There is only those who are in control telling everyone else what to think, feel, believe and express and historically, there has never been such a thing as a benevolent dictator. That sort of unchecked power always goes sour and leads to the worst of results.
I'll take "dangerous foolish freedom" over totalitarianism any day of the week.
π: 0 β©: 1
Of course science is never supposed to be dogmatic- but when a particular theory continues to amass evidence, never finding anything to seriously contradict it, like gravity, evolution etc, then questioning it at all, especially when you're not a scientist working in that field, becomes ridiculous.Β
Flat earth was at no point in time "well evidenced science". This not being true was figured out thousandsΒ of years ago by the ancient Greeks. It was simply a misconception by people who knew no better and thought it was common sense- only a critical lack of information could let you believe something like that. To me, if you question things like evolution, or gravity, orΒ climate change- all of them overwhelmingly agreed on as being true due to hard evidence- then you're making a fool of yourself when you question it.Β
This has nothing to do with "totalitarianism". I'm talking about how challenging hard, well-established evidence is absolutely ridiculous unless you yourself are a qualified scientist with equally hard evidence.
π: 0 β©: 1
Before the ancient Greeks figured this out, then yes -- the Earth being flat was well established science and yes, established by misconception. It was the best they could do at the time, until the Greeks figured it out.
My deviation and the point I am making has everything to do with totalitarianism. My deviation is about a prevalent mindset.Β
Take as the ever popular example, the climate debate. Most scientists do not agree on it. If you dig deeper, it is actually a small handful of main stream approved scientists who agree on it. All other scientists who have other data to present, are not allowed to speak. They are not allowed to present any of their data. They are just called "deniers" and are not allowed any place in the discussion. So yes, even a qualified scientist who has data which contradicts political agendas, are still called deniers, and are not allowed to present any of their evidence.
So it really doesn't matter how long these people have been scientists, how many PHds they have, how skilled they are, or what data they might have. Or even if there are a lot more of them than the main stream condoned minority. They've blasphemed against the prevailing narrative, and must therefore be shunned.
This is just the attitude humans seem to have in general.Β
Me personally, when it comes to how credible someone is or not -- I go by the quality of their character. Because poor quality of character can and does taint research and leads to confirmation bias. As insane as this world provably is right now, I don't really trust most humans. However on a case-by-case basis -- if a human being proves themselves to have high quality of character AND is well researched, they have a lot more consideration from me.
All I see is a bunch of 3 year olds in grown up bodies addicted to petty fighting and making things worse, while virtue signaling about moral and intellectual high grounds. Earth is an insane asylum, and this is provable by how people act and the tangible results of those actions. Thats not nihilism, negativity or hopelessness -- that is evidenced reality.
π: 0 β©: 0
I note that climate Skeptics question. (which has ZERO to do with 'dick wagging' but that's where this conversation ENDS)
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes I agree with you. I'll even dare say that even QUESTIONING "the holocaust" is NOT being a "denier". I think ALL historical narratives need to be QUESTIONED and explored more deeply.Β
As Nipolian (however you spell his name) once said "history is a fairy tale agreed upon" and as Winston Churchill once said "he who controls the past controls the present, and he who controls the present controls the future".
Given the fact that war mongers and nut jobs run the world, I think literally everything should be questioned, more deeply researched and civilly discussed.
We live in a world where people would rather feel justified than explore reality, and in that world -- those who run it have political and ideological agendas in which facts are spun like a top in order to suit the needs of those agendas.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Well said man.
π: 0 β©: 1
No problem man.
π: 0 β©: 0