Is it even possible to reach a shared understanding—or are we destined to live in parallel realities, each convinced of our own version of truth? It feels like there’s no objective place outside of our context to evaluate whose beliefs are closer to the truth.
Erm so like everything is a social construct anyways so like its all fake and made up man I just started thinking about this stuff like a week ago and I'm very smart.
Is it even possible to reach a shared understanding—or are we destined to live in parallel realities, each convinced of our own version of truth? It feels like there’s no objective place outside of our context to evaluate whose beliefs are closer to the truth.
2. You determine who's right through observation and experiment, to see what works and what doesn't. Everything that inherently can't be judged by that rubric is stupid and not worth massdebating.
A difficulty arises when the cost of observation/experiment is "too great" (this is by itself a judgment w.r.t. which people will disagree) going on impossible.
A related complication is lying. Your opponents may lie, which appears to complicate judgments, but really it just means you disagree about another thing, and they judge it worthwhile to damage your cause to advance theirs.
Conflict about things that are inherently "relative" is normal. I think it's better if I benefit and you lose, you think it's better when you benefit and I lose. These are not different versions of reality.
Example: I am a Soviet Communist and this is an American site run by an American patriot. I do not get my jimmies rustled when Americans say Soviet Communism was bad for them and had to be destroyed, this is a normal thing to believe (although I wish we could've C03X1$Ted, picrelated).
But some cuntwhores (usually br*tish for whatever reason) say Communism was bad for Russia, and this is just a filthy solzhenitsyn lie.
It feels like we should use feelings as guides to find leads, not to discern objective truths.
--
To answer the bigger question, one of the ways to figure it out is to find out who is unreliable in their story. A falsehood is easier to detect than a truth. Though with beliefs and ideologies, there comes a point where it doesn't even matter matter if the person believes their own side or not, modern religions like scientologists even say it doesn't matter if you believe it as long as you act as if you do. You say the wrong things and you're thrown out the cult of woke.
Order of operations goes:
Definitions > logic > observations
If there's a conflict between two positions, start by checking if they're even talking about the same thing. If not, then the two sides might be mutually compatible anyway.
Next you try to find logical flaws with the two positions. If a conclusion doesn't follow from the core premises, then that conclusion is suspect regardless of whether the premises were true in the first place.
Once you have the definitions established and have verified that the logic is sound, then you can move on to figuring out if the facts the conclusion is based on are true. That requires research or experimentation.
Erm so like everything is a social construct anyways so like its all fake and made up man I just started thinking about this stuff like a week ago and I'm very smart.
This is like that meme where you have the low IQ and High IQ takes being the same (correct option) with the mid-wits in the middle thinking differently (wrong option).
Within the two party system it's ethos is predicated on pure reactionary "politics". A mechanism for control. (edit for clarity: I'm sperging about politics as it's useful and widely applicable to the overall topic. Even if the thread topic is more generalized)
I often joke with people that while I adore my sister, when we were growing up we'd always fight about everything, if I said, "the sky is blue", she'd probably find some way to find fault with my statement, claiming it was actually more grey, or even maybe green that day. Now let's say that we were both wrong, which we know that in this trivial hypothetical case that both are wrong. Pedantry would be saying that the sky has no color, but that is true, since it's just reflections of scattered light.
This trivial, simplistic case is what you see happen today in every realm of politics.
Why is it a matter of national importance whether a woman wants to murder her child or not? Historically, even in more barbaric and "less civilized" cultures, people understood that killing kids is devastating in the long term, damages your demographics, less young to look after the old, less output (profit) for the local economies (less workers), increasing dependence on other economies (increased imports, reduced exports), etc. The White House is now attempting to encourage people to have children in this slow economic downturn because they can run basic predictions into the future and they don't want us to become like Japan (if we do, we are fucked).,
Yet abortion is made to be this great "civil rights" issue, when it's mostly been considered throughout history to be criminal, anti-human and against God, as well as economically a net negative. You can't win a fucking war if all your children, who would be fighting age, are all now dead.
Niggers take up only 13% yeah? We know a minority group within a democratic system will always have their needs placed on a back-burner, since they are the lesser need. Democracy is just an abstraction of communism but that's besides the point (representative republics are much better). In a democracy the majority gets the preferential treatment (usually, unless white guilt shows up), the nigga wants to be heard. however instead of growing their numbers, when it comes to the black communities they kill their own disproportionately inside of and outside of the womb. They are also placed within a lower-caste, "low-income", and Planned Parenthood makes sure they stay there. I forget where the stat is but iirc people born in poverty rank 10 points on average lower in IQ (because intelligence is (somewhat) learned, your mind is a muscle, poor education and no prospects is devastating to a nigga); which as you could imagine is another "check" to keep them beneath the rest of "us".
That's one case study of how to destabilize a community; limit their range, limit their offspring, turn everyone against them (bonus points for making them violent so everyone is justified in hating them), promote and fund violent influences within their communities to further limit their potential. Brilliant that the system (people) which influence these outcomes have somehow gotten everyone else to implicitly support their agenda within the two party bullshit system.
The idea that black people are inherently violent is part reality, but moreso a psyop by your ruling class; unfortunately i don't see a future where this changes.
Slavery never ended, a nigger still gives me my monsters at the gas station while they get paid minimum wage (so they can't save really anything) and I get to pay rent to a landlord while I eat overpriced food and my $8 coffee while driving my $50k car around town with my low 6 figure income. The poor won't ever make it out in any meaningful way, the American Dream is mostly a scam, you are either lucky/comfortable or you're poor. Over 60% of people born in poverty will die in poverty.
The nigga (and whites as well) get to go home after working late to roaches and maybe get one square meal a day if they are lucky. After the civil war what did the Union do for the nigger? Oh that's right, they "freed" them and then left them in poverty in a land of Confederates, which historical revisionists will tell you today, in your public schools (government funded indoctrination), that the Confederates HATED the nigger. So why would so many black people be left in the South then? It's because, in the big picture, most Confederates didn't hate the nigga all that much, and the Union "hated" them just the same. If the Union really fought for the rights of the poor black man, why didn't they accept, with open arms, the nigger within their cities and their communities? Surely they would have known that the nigga would remain in a lowly state with little to no communal support ESPECIALLY when they were just trying to get established as free men and women within a society!
Our government admits they fucked with MLK Junior, they openly admit that fact in the current year. Malcom X was a heckin' "anti-semite" which when you learn about him in school you never not once hear about that or his criticisms of the Jews controlling the black community's local economies to the detriment of the nigga. Who actually funds most of your rap albums talking about rape and murder? I'm not going to answer that for you but it's not that hard to find out.
Anyway; that's just one small issue of today.
If you are for abortion you are for "a woman's right" to reproduce or not, if you are against abortion you hate women.
In reality, if you are for abortion, you hate niggers, you hate your country, you are an enemy of God and your fellow man (white/black/yellow/everyone). Throughout history a marker for a failed economy is the commoditization of sex and the ease of which you can throw away human life (wasted future potential).
The two party system hasn't failed you; it was never for you.
Among the issues on the TV or on your smartphone while you are taking a shit, what really sticks out to you? Why is it that everyone seems to be equally as uninformed as you are? Why is it that everyone has some sort of opinion on the same topic as you do?
The "SPORTS!" mindset really is in full effect within our current political system. Prop up a team, market it, pay for a balanced ("fun") game, and run the program.
A classic
In the times of Rome, within the Colosseum, many innocent Christians lost their lives to the Roman empire within public view, to public elation. A blood sacrifice, performative in nature, to remind good Romans what the consequences of wrong-think contrasted with the POWER OF ROME fully amplified. "If you feel, or think a certain way, we will find you, and we will kill you." It's very clear messaging. Yet people loved the Colosseum, because their "team" was winning; sure it was completely unfair to the unarmed Christian, but the "us vs. them" mentality is a strong one.
Insurance prices go up, people start to complain, a vigilante appears to snuff some effigy of "insurance" (a man who only had a small part to play in the ever increasing price increases). Later caught rather easily and he is going to be summarily punished.
Two things are communicated, a sacrifice to give the public a feeling that someone is doing something about this issue, so that they can go back to sleep, "it'll work itself out", while also being reminded that their government is all knowing and powerful. If they want to fight back, they too will be punished. I'm implying that the Italian vigilante was put up to it by the government as a performance, not unusual behavior for the CIA.
May I remind you that within the last decade we have had people kill other people, riot and have had "human crushes" all around a game where some faggot kicks a ball into a net. We are no different in politics, it was never about the truth, it was always about my team, my LIES winning that actually matters. Who benefits from their team winning? Do you? No dumbass, both the teams do because you bought overpriced tickets. You pay your taxes (which you are forced to pay, or they imprison you if you want to eat), you vote, you go online and consume the newest slop they have for you because you hate yourself, your fellow man, and God. You'd rather worship a man, and your team, in service to the wealthy, in service to the political ruling class.
WWI was awesome because it validated the government's desire to collect a permanent income tax.
WWII was the final nail in the coffin to help the Zionists take Palestine and crush a socialist economy within Europe. People were realizing that the Germans were prospering, after the Balfour declaration the Germans realized they had been sold out by their Jewish friends. If Germany was allowed to persist, maybe greater Europe would realize they are slaves to communists. Fascism is a fun, undefinable word, communism is also hard to define; this ambiguity is so that you don't know what to do, but rather to listen to "experts" and trust the "science" (political science). Our current economic system is "communism"-lite, income tax is theft (a mechanism of all communist systems, with a different name), we don't have free markets, we have controlled monopolies in energy, jacking up the price), we have no free-market (good luck being able to sell a car in the US if you don't have a billion fucking dollars). In America you can't even legally sell locally butchered meat within your local economy. We need to import overpriced meat, washed with chemicals so that the government and adjacent parties can get their cut of everything we buy and sell.
Over your life 50% or more of everything you generate will be lost to your government. Whether it be through registering your car every year, to paying sales tax, to income tax, to social security (another tax which you won't ever benefit from), etc.
BUT MY TEAM IS WINNING (for four to eight years) SO IT'S OK.
9/11 was a joke to start a war in the middle east for oil, and a power grab to take away your rights and privacy. If you believe otherwise you are the victim of brainwashing. If anything I'm saying sounds strange, you're the victim of brainwashing.
Feelings conceive thought, it should be the other way around but human beings are nigger-cattle. Most people say what they "think" because they are coping about how they felt. Most people tell you lies that make them feel more in line with what they previously felt.
I was born with a mental illness which makes me hyper-vigilant and prone to anxiety; this has been very helpful to me since I naturally am a distrustful person as a result. I consider myself lucky because it's not hard to see deception when you are expecting it. Therefore I have to think about most things because my default "feeling" is distrust, I have to think about why I should trust something, my "gut feeling" isn't something that usually tells me to trust something I see. You don't need to be born defective, you could just think for yourself and you'll be fine. If you realize most people are only in service to their emotions, and they form their entire worldview off of these feelings, you'll be better off.
People talk about psyops yet they seem to miss that everything the two-party system feeds you is, by definition a psyop.
If you can distract people with two made up issues, one for and one against (diametrically opposite), while behind the scenes you are voting in legislation, setting up conditions for wars to be fought, and manipulating international markets through policy. People won't realize that the screws are being tightened, that they are being controlled, and they will be too occupied with a manufactured issue while you rape their lands, their prospects, and rob them of their future.
Edit:
You should also read your Bible, that's more important in the pursuit of truth than anything you'll find elsewhere.
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding." (Prov. 9:10)
