I don't really believe in truth. I believe in facts, but only mathematics and testable physics.
Everyone thinks they're telling the truth, but most of the time they're striving for a consensus.
If enough of your peers think the same as you then that's your shared truth but it's not a way of deciding what speech is acceptable.
I tried this on Gab. I used epistemological arguments, asking how they could possibly know what they were claiming after numerous blocks I was kicked off.
They said my behaviour was destructive, but I read no terms requiring me to be constructive so that was nonsense.
I don't strive for consensus very much. You could rephrase it to say I get banned for sharing too many facts that are too useful.
I haven't tried Gab because I wouldn't expect to find people to coordinate with there. I keep wondering if I'll survive to see nostr become a place where a lot of other commie terrorist sympathizers show up with different skills to contribute to projects and stuff
Who decides what's useful? Isn't that another assumption you're making, that you know what's useful? Isn't that the very essence of looking for consensus?
Facts that aid in the struggle for survival are useful, and are probably the main reason for my many bans.
For example, I often remind people there is not unlimited crude oil.
That's only useful if you think humans are the end of evolution. It may well be we're meant to die out to make way for the next dominant species?
There's no guarantee another dominant species would arise. We are the only known lifeform that currently has the ability to comprehend and solve problems that could lead to extinction, without waiting for a dice roll to see if another species like that shows up in time.
Then maybe earth isn't meant to survive or maybe we can't have certainty?
Maybe this is simulation and we've restarted many times. There's no way to know any of these things for certain so none of them are facts let alone universal truths.
You've completely flipped around now from saying the word "truth" is somehow weaker than the words "facts" and "math" to saying maybe we should just wonder if our senses are real and never make a decision.
I'm saying we can't agree on what the truth is.
If you think you know something is true and I'll tell you how I doubt it.
Thread collapsed
I'm saying facts are testable to some degree but truth isn't really. I'm not giving any moral opinion on which is more important.
Your personal feelings about the word "truth" aren't worth that much discussion to me, I mainly just thought you might learn from the fact that Bluesky is much more hateful of left wing posts than right wing posts.
I don't learn anything second hand. I tested bluesky and gab and succeeded in getting banned by both so they're as bad as each other. Did you actually test gab with communist speech and nihilism?
I have no reason to test gab. It wouldn't be getting me any closer to finding out if Digit is safe. Before I met Digit, it wouldn't have been getting me any closer to any of my other goals.
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
In fairness I didn't try left wing posts on bluesky, but does the political reason for the ban matter?
Yeah, because the truth and facts and math are all considered left wing, but all platforms share a deep and growing hatred for the truth and facts and math in absolute, so no matter how "left wing" they might be, they will still hate pure facts and math that result in statements commonly labeled as more extreme leftism
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
