You do not understand philosophy well, or its meaning. None of what you said is true. It just shows that you do not understand what I said at all. It is okay. My family is exactly the same. I still care about them the same as I care about you.
You don’t seem to understand philosophy well yourself. Maybe English is your second language? If you actually do understand philosophy, you aren’t doing a good job of proving it through writing.
I’m just trying not to argue and be toxic because this place is terrible about such things. It is a major down side and prejudice that is hard to deal with when a person like myself is physically disabled and stuck in long term social isolation where this is my only source of external real human social contact. Unlike with diversity, there is no way to push back against that prejudice. It is rooted in the culture of the internet where people lack the same social peer pressure that regulates their behavior in the real world.
What I said in all instances was done out of simple curiosity using simple abstractions. My purpose is only to have an interesting positive conversation with digital neighbors. I have not prepared rhetoric. I have no desire to engage in negativity. I am no expert. Nothing I say is fit for or intended as scientific publication. I have no agenda. I am simply looking to expand my own understanding of people that have a solid grasp on who and what they are because it increases my potential for kindness, empathy, and understanding. The moment I spot tribalism and dogma, I stop engaging as these are not capable of logic or philosophical abstraction. The first sign of these comes from those that steal my narrative voice. Anyone that speaks for another in their stead lacks fundamental logic. Placing me in some tribal camp is dogmatic. I said nothing to make such an association. If I had quoted or cited someone, sure, but I did no such thing. I have never even heard of the person I am now in some imaginary tribalistic association with purely for the sake of having a curious conversation.
In other words, I am being attacked for information, error, and skepticism. These are unalienable human rights. The right to all information, the right to error, the right to skepticism, and the right to protest in all nonviolent forms are fundamental human rights in all democratic systems. When these are attacked, it is tyranny of authoritarianism. That is nothing more than tribalism and leads to barbarism.
It is ultimately a bad faith response to a conversation. This place lacks the depth to engage in advanced topics at a casual conversational level. That is stifling to my personal growth. Further, the avalanching negativity and bad faith tribalism are a very harmful prejudice because most people seem to assume the internet is an exception and place to vent their true selves. Face to face, no one would respond like this, or rather I would never associate with people that respond in bad faith. I have no real alternative. Therein lies the real prejudice. Stealing any form of human interaction in the public commons infers a person experiencing involuntary social isolation is not human, it strips meaning from life, it withholds basal human needs, and it motivates self harm.
Both the authoritarian left and authoritarian right are murder tribes that kill people on the margins. The marginalized people are different, but always consist of the innocent. I am one of those marginalized people too. I disengage to protect myself as best I can from tribalistic monsters. Dichotomous logic is incapable of real understanding which requires abstract logic skills. This is social media, not academy. It was just a conversation. Depth and engagement met with murder tribe response noted. One more feather on the punch my own ticket tally added. Mission accomplished.
You do not understand philosophy well, or its meaning. None of what you said is true. It just shows that you do not understand what I said at all. It is okay. My family is exactly the same. I still care about them the same as I care about you.
You don’t seem to understand philosophy well yourself. Maybe English is your second language? If you actually do understand philosophy, you aren’t doing a good job of proving it through writing.
I’m just trying not to argue and be toxic because this place is terrible about such things. It is a major down side and prejudice that is hard to deal with when a person like myself is physically disabled and stuck in long term social isolation where this is my only source of external real human social contact. Unlike with diversity, there is no way to push back against that prejudice. It is rooted in the culture of the internet where people lack the same social peer pressure that regulates their behavior in the real world.
What I said in all instances was done out of simple curiosity using simple abstractions. My purpose is only to have an interesting positive conversation with digital neighbors. I have not prepared rhetoric. I have no desire to engage in negativity. I am no expert. Nothing I say is fit for or intended as scientific publication. I have no agenda. I am simply looking to expand my own understanding of people that have a solid grasp on who and what they are because it increases my potential for kindness, empathy, and understanding. The moment I spot tribalism and dogma, I stop engaging as these are not capable of logic or philosophical abstraction. The first sign of these comes from those that steal my narrative voice. Anyone that speaks for another in their stead lacks fundamental logic. Placing me in some tribal camp is dogmatic. I said nothing to make such an association. If I had quoted or cited someone, sure, but I did no such thing. I have never even heard of the person I am now in some imaginary tribalistic association with purely for the sake of having a curious conversation.
In other words, I am being attacked for information, error, and skepticism. These are unalienable human rights. The right to all information, the right to error, the right to skepticism, and the right to protest in all nonviolent forms are fundamental human rights in all democratic systems. When these are attacked, it is tyranny of authoritarianism. That is nothing more than tribalism and leads to barbarism.
It is ultimately a bad faith response to a conversation. This place lacks the depth to engage in advanced topics at a casual conversational level. That is stifling to my personal growth. Further, the avalanching negativity and bad faith tribalism are a very harmful prejudice because most people seem to assume the internet is an exception and place to vent their true selves. Face to face, no one would respond like this, or rather I would never associate with people that respond in bad faith. I have no real alternative. Therein lies the real prejudice. Stealing any form of human interaction in the public commons infers a person experiencing involuntary social isolation is not human, it strips meaning from life, it withholds basal human needs, and it motivates self harm.
Both the authoritarian left and authoritarian right are murder tribes that kill people on the margins. The marginalized people are different, but always consist of the innocent. I am one of those marginalized people too. I disengage to protect myself as best I can from tribalistic monsters. Dichotomous logic is incapable of real understanding which requires abstract logic skills. This is social media, not academy. It was just a conversation. Depth and engagement met with murder tribe response noted. One more feather on the punch my own ticket tally added. Mission accomplished.