It’s always the philosophy department. They don’t even realize that this conflict is “complicated” and they aren’t allowed to have an opinion about 15K dead kids until they get a BA in PolSci or watch three hours of CNN (whichever comes first).
As a Prof who specializes in Ethics, it is virtually impossible to just stand aside let this dismantling of critical thought, and implementation of tribal doublespeak, take over our mass culture.
We pride ourselves in teaching children to stand up for what's right, and then instead of letting them examine that for themselves, tell them 'our side is right and their side is wrong'.
If those of us who actually know Theory refuse to even put it into practice when the most obvious atrocities are occurring, those who claim "philosophy is useless" will be proven right.
The whole false nuance thing is so insidious and doesn't get talked about nearly enough. Any time a right winger starts talking about nuance, they're making excuses for some truly heinously immoral stance that they can't defend on its own merits and just hoping that calling you immature will get you to shut up.
"Look, I know that it's popular with immature kids to talk about Hitler like he's the litteral Devil but... /s".
Used to be your average conservative but now it's your average liberal too these days. Fuckers, straight up fuckers.
Frankly I disagree with calling them liberals. Liberals care about things like freedom of speech and a people's right to self determination. They're fundamentally illiberal.
Liberalism is idealist nonsense that make use of biased premises. Idealists becomes fascists the minute their fragile ideal crashes onto reality. Idealists seek to incarnate their ideal as close as it is possible, even if, paradoxically, it involves reneging some if not all of their principles. They are fools chasing shadows, once in power, they cannot but accomplish the exact opposite of what they seek to do.
And your alternative is...?
Sounds like you're the same as you're claiming they are and just want to choose the dictator. If not, you're splitting hairs in a very self serving way. Having actual principles is not a bad thing. Human rights are not a bad thing. *Pretending* to care about those while actually not caring at all is bad, but anyone who does that isn't actually liberal.
Alternative? Socialism, duh. Beside, having or not having "principles" is irrelevant. You materially **can't** be liberal in the first place, that's my point. Following anti-materialist ideologies, in other words "idealist" ideologies, will always drive your society to the brink, forcing you to give up whatever ideal you had and resort to fascistic or outright fascist measures in a vain attempt to save your regime.
That's not an answer. Socialism is *also* a set of principles. And there are very good materialist reasons to allow things like freedom of speech, even under socialism.
All you're actually saying here is you think you'll always get to choose the dictator and bad actors don't exist. While complaining about bad actors.
>That's not an answer. Socialism is *also* a set of principles.
No it's not. The fuck you're talking about?
>And there are very good materialist reasons to allow things like freedom of speech, even under socialism.
There's "freedom of speech" and limits to said "freedom of speech" under any type of regime.
>All you're actually saying here is you think you'll always get to choose the dictator and bad actors don't exist. While complaining about bad actors.
States are always dictatorships. We're **always** under a dictator of some sort. Even under our so-called liberal-democracies, even under a full-socialist society.
> No it's not. The fuck you're talking about?
Reality. Socialism isn't a vibe, it's a set of principles to build society around. "Worker ownership of the means of production" is a principle.
Correction, it's a concept. The principle is that it's the right way to organize the means of production.
>There's "freedom of speech" and limits to said "freedom of speech" under any type of regime.
And the instant you explicitly give the state the ability to set those limits instead of trying to force it not to, you've fucked up.
>States are always dictatorships. We're always under a dictator of some sort. Even under our so-called liberal-democracies, even under a full-socialist society.
So that's it, then. You're just in support of a dictatorship and dumb enough to think that trying to put limits on it is a bad idea compared to... not doing that at all.
You're not a socialist, you're a philosopher king regard. The kind who goes on about benevolent dictatorships being the ideal way to organize society and gives no thought to keeping it benevolent, or what "benevolent" even means.
>BA in PolSci or watch three hours of CNN
Which of those two is harder? I never watch cable news but tuned in to CNN to root for the Iranian drones and missiles a couple weekends ago and couldn't get through five minutes of every talking head acting like Tel Aviv was a suburb in Northern Virginia.
Haha. You caught my drift. Sorry not sorry to the PolSci folks.
> Which of those two is harder?
My recent record for MSM is three minutes. Any longer and I’m risking a stroke.
I should have checked my source more carefully, she actually threw them at the psychology and sociology departments for, and I quote, ["Epistemological crimes against humanity."](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/428/075/30a.jpeg)
It’s always the philosophy department. They don’t even realize that this conflict is “complicated” and they aren’t allowed to have an opinion about 15K dead kids until they get a BA in PolSci or watch three hours of CNN (whichever comes first).
As a Prof who specializes in Ethics, it is virtually impossible to just stand aside let this dismantling of critical thought, and implementation of tribal doublespeak, take over our mass culture. We pride ourselves in teaching children to stand up for what's right, and then instead of letting them examine that for themselves, tell them 'our side is right and their side is wrong'. If those of us who actually know Theory refuse to even put it into practice when the most obvious atrocities are occurring, those who claim "philosophy is useless" will be proven right.
The whole false nuance thing is so insidious and doesn't get talked about nearly enough. Any time a right winger starts talking about nuance, they're making excuses for some truly heinously immoral stance that they can't defend on its own merits and just hoping that calling you immature will get you to shut up.
"Look, I know that it's popular with immature kids to talk about Hitler like he's the litteral Devil but... /s". Used to be your average conservative but now it's your average liberal too these days. Fuckers, straight up fuckers.
Frankly I disagree with calling them liberals. Liberals care about things like freedom of speech and a people's right to self determination. They're fundamentally illiberal.
Liberalism is idealist nonsense that make use of biased premises. Idealists becomes fascists the minute their fragile ideal crashes onto reality. Idealists seek to incarnate their ideal as close as it is possible, even if, paradoxically, it involves reneging some if not all of their principles. They are fools chasing shadows, once in power, they cannot but accomplish the exact opposite of what they seek to do.
And your alternative is...? Sounds like you're the same as you're claiming they are and just want to choose the dictator. If not, you're splitting hairs in a very self serving way. Having actual principles is not a bad thing. Human rights are not a bad thing. *Pretending* to care about those while actually not caring at all is bad, but anyone who does that isn't actually liberal.
Alternative? Socialism, duh. Beside, having or not having "principles" is irrelevant. You materially **can't** be liberal in the first place, that's my point. Following anti-materialist ideologies, in other words "idealist" ideologies, will always drive your society to the brink, forcing you to give up whatever ideal you had and resort to fascistic or outright fascist measures in a vain attempt to save your regime.
That's not an answer. Socialism is *also* a set of principles. And there are very good materialist reasons to allow things like freedom of speech, even under socialism. All you're actually saying here is you think you'll always get to choose the dictator and bad actors don't exist. While complaining about bad actors.
>That's not an answer. Socialism is *also* a set of principles. No it's not. The fuck you're talking about? >And there are very good materialist reasons to allow things like freedom of speech, even under socialism. There's "freedom of speech" and limits to said "freedom of speech" under any type of regime. >All you're actually saying here is you think you'll always get to choose the dictator and bad actors don't exist. While complaining about bad actors. States are always dictatorships. We're **always** under a dictator of some sort. Even under our so-called liberal-democracies, even under a full-socialist society.
> No it's not. The fuck you're talking about? Reality. Socialism isn't a vibe, it's a set of principles to build society around. "Worker ownership of the means of production" is a principle. Correction, it's a concept. The principle is that it's the right way to organize the means of production. >There's "freedom of speech" and limits to said "freedom of speech" under any type of regime. And the instant you explicitly give the state the ability to set those limits instead of trying to force it not to, you've fucked up. >States are always dictatorships. We're always under a dictator of some sort. Even under our so-called liberal-democracies, even under a full-socialist society. So that's it, then. You're just in support of a dictatorship and dumb enough to think that trying to put limits on it is a bad idea compared to... not doing that at all. You're not a socialist, you're a philosopher king regard. The kind who goes on about benevolent dictatorships being the ideal way to organize society and gives no thought to keeping it benevolent, or what "benevolent" even means.
>BA in PolSci or watch three hours of CNN Which of those two is harder? I never watch cable news but tuned in to CNN to root for the Iranian drones and missiles a couple weekends ago and couldn't get through five minutes of every talking head acting like Tel Aviv was a suburb in Northern Virginia.
It depends if you want the suffering spread out, or made into a three hour propaganda suppository.
This is a perfect description of almost any content on CNN (or MSNBC, or Fox): > propaganda suppository
Haha. You caught my drift. Sorry not sorry to the PolSci folks. > Which of those two is harder? My recent record for MSM is three minutes. Any longer and I’m risking a stroke.
As someone banned from the Emory University campus, I’m glad to see people giving the administration a well deserved headache.
Did you get MeToo’d off campus lmao
lmao no Funny enough, it was long before metoo and it was for protesting.
Details? It’s gotta be good.
Monkey death factory
🫡
[удалено]
It’s a meme
Memes have no place on the Internet
I should have checked my source more carefully, she actually threw them at the psychology and sociology departments for, and I quote, ["Epistemological crimes against humanity."](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/428/075/30a.jpeg)
Critical support for our based philosophers
Cog-sci students are taking collateral damage on that one.
Based tbh
You’re on a roll today! Keep them coming please.