Aristocracy & Censorship

[Bertrand]

Case in point, you prove the cynicism via being entrapped in the ideology you espouse. Assuming we are living in a pure environment without cultural legacies. Iran has numerous women in stem and start ups, additional their perculiar history. (This would be picking and choosing a specific state and running away with it to make it an immutable reality).

One thing I've noticed above all is that people have trouble thinking beyond axiomatic foundations of their worldview. There's a lot of conflation of independent empirical information with banal real data lacking infallible explanation, which falls victim to ideology as it is necessary to fill in the gaps. Subjectivity is presented as fact.

BTW this is true of every ideology and every ideology out there is fighting for social dominance and perception of benevolence. There's dishonest mudslinging everywhere, and infallible answers are illusive unless cognitive blindspots are raised. You prove Lewontin (as he does himself) through noting the fact that Virtually (of not absolutely) every political organisation has a vested interest in protecting it's power structure through ideology.

your entire point relies on there being women in stem in iran? you haven't even begun to grapple with the issue but you think you can get above it by saying its all subjective. its just silly, you're the equivalent of the guy who never gets off the couch claiming victory over those with jobs because you've deemed them all as slaves to the grind or whatever. its fundamentally grounded in a need to invert the hierarchy you're on the bottom of and subconsciously know it. the claim that everything is subjective is only effective in the mind for the person for whom that is all they have to validate their own view. its predicated on resentment, nothing more

as for me, calling my "ideology" a "trap" doesn't make it so, you would have to demonstrate how it is so beyond simply blanketing all beliefs as ideological and therefore traps. if everything is a trap nothing is. that's whats so fundamentally empty about post modernism, it exists specifically to unwind a very specific subset of modernist beliefs, and like a ladder you utilize and then throw away once you've reached the destination, it is no longer useful. it only maintains its use as a tool for a resentful kind of person that uses it to level others not ascend themselves. this is what transforms it from having been anti ideological at its inception into the positive ideology it is today, it owes its persistence in time to the intractability of resentment as a feature of a significant portion of humanity. even if you were right, it only makes it all the more senseless that you would waste time trying to propagate your views because its an inherently self referentially defeating construct. like anndelise it retains its use as a tool to explode other's points of view but to retain the right to maintain one's own. its fundamentally hypocritical inasmuch as it is used as anything other than the means to humble oneself, which ironically has long since gone out of style

the only redeeming feature to your point of view is that is fundamentally self defeating, because although it may confer some semblance of a moral sense of superiority, inasmuch as it is indeed equivalent to doing nothing and claiming victory it fundamentally extinguishes itself on a long enough timeline, as it will naturally be replaced by modes of thinking with actual use. this is appropriate because it was conceived with planned obsolescence in mind anyway, although that's something that many of its half witted followers fail to understand, mainly because they've read none of the original post modernists themselves and understand nothing of its real purpose and philosophical origins

@anndelise honestly I don't understand your perspective or what you're trying to say beyond "people have differing opinions, therefore all truth value is equivalent"-- you offer this theory that breaks values down into 5 or 6 dichotomies but offer no reason as to why it should be accepted, except that since all opinions are valid it is likewise valid, but it just makes it totally worthless. that's the problem with IEE, if they explode all reasoning and then proceed to offer their own substitute there is literally no reason why we should accept their substitute, and many reasons why we should never accept the base premise it is predicated on. because we simply need not go on that magic carpet ride to begin with; we can just fundamentally retain the initial project of using reasons to discern between better and worse theories. creating a blank slate on the basis that its all a matter of opinion fundamentally undermines whatever follows, fatally. you might get a few autists like soupman to go along with you, which I think perhaps inclusion is your entire goal, so kudos inasmuch as you've managed to bring in someone who would otherwise be fundamentally excluded from seriously contributing, but you have to realize this is precisely why affirmative action is sort of bad, it goes nowhere because you've undermined your own competitive fitness by stacking the court with people who are by definition not best fit to fill the position

if this is honestly the pro censorship group, democracy has a bright future ahead of it--so maybe it really is a win-win

[Soupman]

your entire point relies on there being women in stem in iran? you haven't even begun to grapple with the issue but you think you can get above it by saying its all subjective. its just silly, you're the equivalent of the guy who never gets off the couch claiming victory over those with jobs because you've deemed them all as slaves to the grind or whatever. its fundamentally grounded in a need to invert the hierarchy you're on the bottom of and subconsciously know it. the claim that everything is subjective is only effective in the mind for the person for whom that is all they have to validate their own view. its predicated on resentment, nothing more

as for me, calling my "ideology" a "trap" doesn't make it so, you would have to demonstrate how it is so beyond simply blanketing all beliefs as ideological and therefore traps. if everything is a trap nothing is. that's whats so fundamentally empty about post modernism, it exists specifically to unwind a very specific subset of modernist beliefs, and like a ladder you utilize and then throw away once you've reached the destination, it is no longer useful. it only maintains its use as a tool for a resentful kind of person that uses it to level others not ascend themselves. this is what transforms it from having been anti ideological at its inception into the positive ideology it is today, it owes its persistence in time to the intractability of resentment as a feature of a significant portion of humanity. even if you were right, it only makes it all the more senseless that you would waste time trying to propagate your views because its an inherently self referentially defeating construct. like anndelise it retains its use as a tool to explode other's points of view but to retain the right to maintain one's own. its fundamentally hypocritical inasmuch as it is used as anything other than the means to humble oneself, which ironically has long since gone out of style

the only redeeming feature to your point of view is that is fundamentally self defeating, because although it may confer some semblance of a moral sense of superiority, inasmuch as it is indeed equivalent to doing nothing and claiming victory it fundamentally extinguishes itself on a long enough timeline, as it will naturally be replaced by modes of thinking with actual use. this is appropriate because it was conceived with planned obsolescence in mind anyway, although that's something that many of its half witted followers fail to understand, mainly because they've read none of the original post modernists themselves and understand nothing of its real purpose and philosophical origins

@anndelise honestly I don't understand your perspective or what you're trying to say beyond that "people have differing opinions, therefore all truth value is equivalent"

Have you read "Khaneman's Thinking Fast and Slow"? You had a substitution fallacy by claiming that "if everything is an ideological trap nothing is"?

If your abstractive and analytical capacity can't comprehend that everything is ideology, there's no engagement needed.

Failing to connect the dots and realise ideas are everywhere and they affect the very conception of reality through a bias of expectation - layering the axiomatic perversion (infallibility across space and time is illusive unless one is dishonest).

[anndelise]

@anndelise honestly I don't understand your perspective or what you're trying to say beyond "people have differing opinions, therefore all truth value is equivalent"--

How about People have differing opinions, who's/what's to say which, if any, opinion should rule over others?

Edited to add: the rest of your comment wasn't worth one finger typing on my kindle. Beyond to say that I don't even know Soupman, certainly didn't call him in, and am sure he could easily obliterate most of what i've written in this thread with little effort. Clicking like/constructive doesn't necessarily mean agreement nor group effort.