the entire history of intellectualism has been to discredit other people's views not on their own merit but by demonizing them. . . religiontards will call anyone who disagrees with them as supporters of cringe man-made law who are wrong because it

Posting mode: Reply [Return]
Name
Options
Subject	Spoiler Image
Comment
Verification
Flag
File
Embed
Password	(For file deletion.)

File: 1778208864398.png (41.76 KB, 269x187, ClipboardImage.png)

Anonymous 08-05-26 02:54:24 No.780475

the entire history of intellectualism has been to discredit other people's views not on their own merit but by demonizing them.

religiontards will call anyone who disagrees with them as supporters of cringe man-made law who are wrong because it just is ok chud???? communists will call anyone who disagree wiht them to to do so only because of false consciousness arising from class position (dont ask the class position of many of these communist intellectuals), and fascists will call their opponents to be spiritually brainwashed by jews (one would think that jews are the ubermensch since they have literal mind control). Whatever you call it, the imperatives remain the same: anyone who disagrees with me is a cringe zogged stupid woahjak and pluralism and difference of opinion is seen as impediment to whatever nonsensical endgame the religiotards and their offspring the marxist and the fascist wish to pursue rather than something inherent to how humans process the world around us

Anonymous 08-05-26 02:57:33 No.780476

increasingly i come to the conclusion that Deleuze and the anarchist post modern tradition is the only tradition that does not come with jackbooted thugs ready to bash your head for disagreeing with them. Only anarchists can understand that difference of opinions are not a form of corruption but rather interaction of equally valid opinions that are right on their own terms

Anonymous 08-05-26 06:11:08 No.780507

Your retarded opinion is just repackaged muh free speech and muh marketplace of ideas.

Anonymous 08-05-26 06:14:54 No.780508

>>780507
yes, i do think marketplace of ideas are a good thing, and the USSR shoving a hegemonic ideal of what proletariat expression is supposed to be like is not only backwards but harmful to leftism. There is a reason why every theoretical development in leftism happened in the West with its free speech and not the Soviet Union

Anonymous 08-05-26 06:25:55 No.780509

>>780475
>what is the paradox of tolerance
Socialists are just fine with difference as long as it's not objectively hurting the movement. China has a multiparty system. Most eastern bloc countries had multiparty systems and the Soviet Union was fine with that.
It just so happens that you can afford far less tolerance when the entire imperialist world is obsessed with destroying you and enslaving your people. Even what was accepted in CPSU turned out to be too much.

Anonymous 08-05-26 06:43:17 No.780510

You mean of anti-intellectualism?

Anonymous 08-05-26 09:23:15 No.780526

>>780509
>what was accepted in CPSU turned out to be too much
not really no,it just introduced a preference for the "quiet" type of sabotage,where you lie in wait for the maniac in charge to die before you fuck up the place
the "loud" ones are paradoxically,the ones that are the least dangerous,as you always know who they are and what they think,and then you can trace back who fund/help/encourage them and track those.
that's why a controlled opposition is superior to total control,because it funnels all the problematic people out in the open

08-05-26 15:27:41 No.780585

This.
It’s especially the most prevalent in schools.
Students who express differing sentiments relative to their ethnogeopolitical culture are seen as troublemakers

>>780509
Fascism has the same rationale as you

08-05-26 16:06:37 No.780607

>>780508
There are some people who distinguish communism from the generalising term leftism

Anonymous 08-05-26 20:16:29 No.780704

>>780475
look dude, Imma be real, reality is not democratic, nor enhanced by more opinions.

reality is a hierarchy, some things are more true than others, therefore filters to incorrect or untruthful ideas are put into place to reduce the ammount of time wasted thinking about them, what you call echo chambers are just that, people coming to conclusions based on using dialectic or socratic tought, eliminating the ideas left over that don't withstand the test of logic etc.

what dumb rightoids say about the marketplace of ideas is kinda correct, but not in the way that they think, they just put too much emphasis on debate over tought.

Unique IPs: 7