Talking to the other side - Antifa

[C-Mag]

So did you learn that you can't reason with an irrational child? Anyone who's raised a toddler understands that.

You know the thing about people being wrong, is for some, they so absolutely believe they are right. They have this confidence, they really believe they are right and that whosoever is trying to argue them out of their position is trying to argue them out of what is absolutely true, that the person trying to argue them out of it is either an idiot or severely misguided. Even in the face of clear logical proof that they're wrong, they believe they're right, and they're confident of it. They would bet their life on it, without blinking, if it came to that. I guess that's why I argue with adult toddlers, because I like to poke that absolute confidence, because absolute confidence bothers me.

So, they are Sociopaths.

[jediuser598]

In the event that all of your senses were false, yet you sensed something changing, why would you assume that change is real?

Say I feel like a bug is crawling up my leg, but there's no bug. Should I assume there's a bug anyway?

In order for something to change, something has to change. Even if we do not correctly perceive the change, I would argue we can still be certain that something changed. The bug may be fake, but something somewhere would have had to change in order for me to perceive the fake bug.

If you mean my neurons firing in a random pattern, rather than a predictable one, sure.... But I'd never have the concept of neurons in the first place, if I couldn't sense anything correctly.

We can still assert that change exists, even if it's merely just neurons firing, even if this is all an illusion.

[jediuser598]

So did you learn that you can't reason with an irrational child? Anyone who's raised a toddler understands that.

You know the thing about people being wrong, is for some, they so absolutely believe they are right. They have this confidence, they really believe they are right and that whosoever is trying to argue them out of their position is trying to argue them out of what is absolutely true, that the person trying to argue them out of it is either an idiot or severely misguided. Even in the face of clear logical proof that they're wrong, they believe they're right, and they're confident of it. They would bet their life on it, without blinking, if it came to that. I guess that's why I argue with adult toddlers, because I like to poke that absolute confidence, because absolute confidence bothers me.

So, they are Sociopaths.

I don't know.

[SuburbanFarmer]

In order for something to change, something has to change. Even if we do not correctly perceive the change, I would argue we can still be certain that something changed. The bug may be fake, but something somewhere would have had to change in order for me to perceive the fake bug.

If you mean my neurons firing in a random pattern, rather than a predictable one, sure.... But I'd never have the concept of neurons in the first place, if I couldn't sense anything correctly.

We can still assert that change exists, even if it's merely just neurons firing, even if this is all an illusion.

We, in our current reality, can do so yes. But in this hypothetical, where I have no correct senses, I can't do that.

The ultimate 'false senses' would be 'no senses'. Imagine that you lost all of your senses - imprisoned in your mind, lying in a hospital bed. Eventually, change would cease to exist for you. There is no change, of any kind, ever. How can you assert that change is real?

[jediuser598]

If you mean my neurons firing in a random pattern, rather than a predictable one, sure.... But I'd never have the concept of neurons in the first place, if I couldn't sense anything correctly.

We can still assert that change exists, even if it's merely just neurons firing, even if this is all an illusion.

We, in our current reality, can do so yes. But in this hypothetical, where I have no correct senses, I can't do that.

The ultimate 'false senses' would be 'no senses'. Imagine that you lost all of your senses - imprisoned in your mind, lying in a hospital bed. Eventually, change would cease to exist for you. There is no change, of any kind, ever. How can you assert that change is real?

We wouldn't be able to assert anything if change didn't exist.

[SuburbanFarmer]

We can still assert that change exists, even if it's merely just neurons firing, even if this is all an illusion.

We, in our current reality, can do so yes. But in this hypothetical, where I have no correct senses, I can't do that.

The ultimate 'false senses' would be 'no senses'. Imagine that you lost all of your senses - imprisoned in your mind, lying in a hospital bed. Eventually, change would cease to exist for you. There is no change, of any kind, ever. How can you assert that change is real?

We wouldn't be able to assert anything if change didn't exist.

We know this to be true, but not outside of our senses.

Nothing can be known that is outside of our senses. Ever. The brain has no inherent 'truth' to it. We simply process what it receives.

Consider The Matrix - living your entire existence inside a fluid pod, jacked into the system. If the system goes down, or the machines decide to save energy and turn it off, perhaps you survive, but without any inputs to the brain. Effectively, there is no change to your consciousness - ever.

[C-Mag]

You know the thing about people being wrong, is for some, they so absolutely believe they are right. They have this confidence, they really believe they are right and that whosoever is trying to argue them out of their position is trying to argue them out of what is absolutely true, that the person trying to argue them out of it is either an idiot or severely misguided. Even in the face of clear logical proof that they're wrong, they believe they're right, and they're confident of it. They would bet their life on it, without blinking, if it came to that. I guess that's why I argue with adult toddlers, because I like to poke that absolute confidence, because absolute confidence bothers me.

So, they are Sociopaths.

I don't know.

So, I checked definitions, it could be Sociopath or Psychopath.

A sociopath typically has a conscience, but it’s weak. He may know that taking your money is wrong, and he might feel some guilt or remorse, but that won’t stop his behavior.

Both lack empathy, the ability to stand in someone else’s shoes and understand how they feel. But a psychopath has less regard for others, says Aaron Kipnis, PhD, author of The Midas Complex. Someone with this personality type sees others as objects he can use for his own benefit.
~ Web MD

[jediuser598]

We, in our current reality, can do so yes. But in this hypothetical, where I have no correct senses, I can't do that.

The ultimate 'false senses' would be 'no senses'. Imagine that you lost all of your senses - imprisoned in your mind, lying in a hospital bed. Eventually, change would cease to exist for you. There is no change, of any kind, ever. How can you assert that change is real?

We wouldn't be able to assert anything if change didn't exist.

We know this to be true, but not outside of our senses.

Nothing can be known that is outside of our senses. Ever. The brain has no inherent 'truth' to it. We simply process what it receives.

Consider The Matrix - living your entire existence inside a fluid pod, jacked into the system. If the system goes down, or the machines decide to save energy and turn it off, perhaps you survive, but without any inputs to the brain. Effectively, there is no change to your consciousness - ever.

Even if we shut off all of our senses, sight, seeing, hearing, touch, taste, we still think. Our thinking, in an of itself, is an experience. We essentially do this every night, when we dream. We shut off all of our senses and just use our brain to experience things we've experienced in new combinations. In order for us to even dream, in order for us to experience anything, change has to exist.

Our brain is an input to our brain.

[jediuser598]

So, they are Sociopaths.

I don't know.

So, I checked definitions, it could be Sociopath or Psychopath.

A sociopath typically has a conscience, but it’s weak. He may know that taking your money is wrong, and he might feel some guilt or remorse, but that won’t stop his behavior.

Both lack empathy, the ability to stand in someone else’s shoes and understand how they feel. But a psychopath has less regard for others, says Aaron Kipnis, PhD, author of The Midas Complex. Someone with this personality type sees others as objects he can use for his own benefit.
~ Web MD

I'd define the condition in question like this, they are absolutely certain of themselves, about something. Had a manager do this once and it almost killed me. She was absolutely certain that it was ok to work in gas, as in I could smell the gas, she could smell the gas, and there was an open element there to ignite the gas, and she was going to write me up because I refused to work in said gas. She even argued that despite the gas, the gas could not be ignited by an open element. Her priorities were thus, getting the kitchen going, because if she doesn't do that, then she's going to get in trouble and could lose her job if things weren't ready. That's perhaps a bit of stupidty, but more it's, she feels such strong pressure that she tries to clear everything away in order to get the job done. I don't think that's sociopathy or psychopathy.

She later realized how wrong she was, and although I don't know if that changed her behavior or how she took it, but she was eventually willing to admit she was wrong.

But what is overwhelming evidence for some, well even overwhelming evidence for reasonable people, isn't always good enough evidence for others.

I hear this all the time from older people, "Things just aren't built the way they used to be, today's cars are horribly unsafe compared to the way they used to be built, they used to be built so much sturdier, so much better." And they bet their life on it every day that the solid metal boats they're driving are safer.

But then I show them evidence:

And even then some people are really hesitant to believe what is demonstrably true. Sociopaths? I don't think so, more, many years of conditioning to be a certain thing, or believe a certain way.

[C-Mag]

H/T Jedi, you are kind and reasonable to a fault. Props

I'm more cynical about the intentions of the AntiFa crowd. Check this out. A black woman tries to speak about Non-Violent Protest, ala MLK and she gets schooled on what this is all about by the mainstream AntiFa.