The GDF Septic Tank (Official Off Topic)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-criticism_(Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism)

From the wiki:

"The Marxist concept of self-criticism is also present in the works of Mao Zedong, who was heavily influenced by Stalin, dedicating an entire chapter of The Little Red Book to the issue.

In some communist states, party members who had fallen out of favor with the nomenklatura were sometimes forced to undergo self-criticism sessions, producing either written or verbal statements detailing their ideological errors and affirming their renewed belief in the party line."

Quote from Stalin:

"I think, comrades, that self-criticism is as necessary to us as air or water. I think that without it, without self-criticism, our Party could not make any headway, could not disclose our ulcers, could not eliminate our shortcomings. And shortcomings we have in plenty. That must be admitted frankly and honestly."

Note: eliminate our short comings means murdering millions of people.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
What your pointing out is his adroit use of rhetoric, in the aristotelian sense.

Is it clever or are his targets just gullible fools who keep falling for the same fear-fueled con over and over and over.

Originally posted by Robtard
Is it clever or are his targets just gullible fools who keep falling for the same fear-fueled con over and over and over.

Originally posted by Robtard
Is it clever or are his targets just gullible fools who keep falling for the same fear-fueled con over and over and over.

I think it's clever on his part, and anyone else who effectively uses it.

I think anyone who it works on guarantees their victimhood to rhetoric by being uninformed.

Im a practitioner of dialectic, thus trump's rhetoric never worked on me.
However I'm extremely influenced by von Moses, rothbard, hope, etc. Because they also use dialectic.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
I'd go with gullible fools.

Agreed

Originally posted by ilikecomics
I think it's clever on his part, and anyone else who effectively uses it.

I think anyone who it works on guarantees their victimhood to rhetoric by being uninformed.

Im a practitioner of dialectic, thus trump's rhetoric never worked on me.
However I'm extremely influenced by von Moses, rothbard, hope, etc. Because they also use dialectic.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
However, durcry

What about what I said do you take issue with ?

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Imagine thinking that government funded scientistry is the same as the scientific method when things like these exist

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

Your point would be valid if the link you provided didn't prove your point to be invalid.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Your point would be valid if the link you provided didn't prove your point to be invalid.

What is my point ? And how did the links disprove that point ?

You're having another one of your tantrums about the covid vaccines and thinking they are somehow compromised because they were funded by the government. You link to a wiki article talking about the infamous most downloaded scientific paper in the world by Ionnidis, a man known for managing to prove himself wrong in relation to his opinions on covid. One of the "cures" for the problem of replicability in scientific studies is given in that same wiki article. Meta-analysis/studies/data. The efficacy of the covid vaccines has been subject to enormous numbers of meta-analytic studies. Possibly one of the most heavily studied pieces of science in history. And they overwhelmingly show the benefits far outweighing the concerns.

So well done on playing yourself. 👍🏻

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
You're having another one of your tantrums about the covid vaccines and thinking they are somehow compromised because they were funded by the government. You link to a wiki article talking about the infamous most downloaded scientific paper in the world by Ionnidis, a man known for managing to prove himself wrong in relation to his opinions on covid. One of the "cures" for the problem of replicability in scientific studies is given in that same wiki article. Meta-analysis/studies/data. The efficacy of the covid vaccines has been subject to enormous numbers of meta-analytic studies. Possibly one of the most heavily studied pieces of science in history. And they overwhelmingly show the benefits far outweighing the concerns.

So well done on playing yourself. 👍🏻

The replication crisis is provable, outside of lonnidis.

No, my point was that the meme talks about trusting the science, which is a form of faith when you can prove that alot of science isn't replicable, which is the actual gold standard of science.

I agree meta analysis is important.

The scientists that are pro vaxx tend to have incentives to be, those who are antivaxx have an incentive to be honest.

Either way, to act like there's universal consensus around the vax is extremely incorrect as a claim.

It's kind of like the epistemology around Alex Jones. If he says something demonstrably false he goes to court.
If CNN gets something wrong, people find out and go listen to Alex Jones, because he's reliable via the mechanism of being heavily punished if incorrect.

Your implying that if a scientist is pro vaccines, then their must be something nefarious behind it. While outright stating anti vaccines types are just honest and not in for themselves. Which has been proven to be untrue.

Originally posted by Robtard
Your implying that if a scientist is pro vaccines, then their must be something nefarious behind it. While outright stating anti vaccines types are just honest and not in for themselves. Which has been proven to be untrue.

No.
I'm saying that if youre a scientist, who gets money from the state, youre incentivized to say things that are pro-statist.

Edit: Humans respond to incentives - Upton Sinclair realized as much when he said the following:

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

No again.
My point with Alex Jones, or anyone like him, have had the stakes of lying raised by those who oppose him. This increases the trust his audience has for him.

A parallel example of this effect is YouTube banning crowder for technicalities. This only makes him that much more on his A game, and incentivizes his viewers to fact check him so he doesn't get banned for misinformation.

The anti vaxx people could be totally wrong about the vaxx, but I've yet to see that be the case. I've watched the people I follow predict time and time again the state's next move and it inevitably comes true.
It could be confirmation bias idk, which is why I'm trying to figure it (life) all out.

Originally posted by ilikecomics

I agree meta analysis is important.

The scientists that are pro vaxx tend to have incentives to be, those who are antivaxx have an incentive to be honest.

Either way, to act like there's universal consensus around the vax is extremely incorrect as a claim.

1. Yet you conveniently ignore it in this case despite these meta analyses being conducted by numerous independent scientific institutions across many countries with zero declared conflicts of interest because you don't want to believe their findings despite having no counter to them other than "da gubmint's baaaaad"

2. Yet every single prominent anti covid vax scientist just happens to have been associated with companies peddling supposed alternatives to the vaccines. A fact which has been brought to your attention numerous times and, again, you continue to ignore because you simply don't want to believe it. How does that fit in with your "incentive to be honest"?

More amusing still with your use of that wiki article to back your claim is that every credible meta-analysis that's been published has disregarded studies that support your anti vax stance because of the shoddy methodologies used in them are their lack of replicability. How does this multifaceted contradiction even work inside your brain?

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
1. Yet you conveniently ignore it in this case despite these meta analyses being conducted by numerous independent scientific institutions across many countries with zero declared conflicts of interest because you don't want to believe their findings despite having no counter to them other than "da gubmint's baaaaad"

2. Yet every single prominent anti covid vax scientist just happens to have been associated with companies peddling supposed alternatives to the vaccines. A fact which has been brought to your attention numerous times and, again, you continue to ignore because you simply don't want to believe it. How does that fit in with your "incentive to be honest"?

Yes, if they're paid by the state it's a conflict of interest.

The anti vaxx scientists sell supplements and therapeutics because they work.
Ivermectin, zinc, vitamin c, b vitamins, all lessen covid symptoms and lessen duration of symptoms. This have been proven.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
More amusing still with your use of that wiki article to back your claim is that every credible meta-analysis that's been published has disregarded studies that support your anti vax stance because of the shoddy methodologies used in them are their lack of replicability. How does this multifaceted contradiction even work inside your brain?

I only care if the scientific method is followed and the data is objectively produced and interpreted.

You simply cannot be as dumb as you're portraying yourself to be.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
You simply cannot be as dumb as you're portraying yourself to be.

I have a brain injury and think in very concrete and rigid ways, hence why I find deontology to be the best approach to morals and a priori to be the best approach epistemologically.

Think about how the following fits together

You say that corporations are extentions of the state
You say that any scientific studies conducted with any kind of state funding are inherently compromised with conflicts of interest so you don't believe them. You disregard any studies that don't support your beliefs as being inherently compromised because of state funding even when you don't know anything at all about their funding and where no conflict of interest was declared.
Yet you say that scientific opinions expressed by people working for and on behalf of and to the benefit of corporations are valid and honest. Even when these opinions are not based on any scientific study those people have been involved in.

You claim that so long as the scientific method is followed that is what matters yet you ignore meta-analyses that utilise it rigorously and on the other hand you accept as fact, studies which were either retracted by their authors for being flawed or are left out of meta-analyses because they did not comply with the scientific method.

You support your opinion with a wiki article that criticises studies which cannot be replicated because of their poor scientific methodology yet accept as fact studies shown to be unreplicable because of their poor scientific methodology.