• patatas@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    14 hours ago

    Speak for yourself. Just read some of the thread being referenced and uhhh you might want to start listening

    • Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      Give me an example that’s legitimate. What exactly do you think is wrong how about that.

      Like this is as lazy as any r/the_donald comment. Which is also a super Astro turfed space where gauging a view based on the communities response is not the best thing to do

      • patatas@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        I mean first off, lol, because what does “legitimate” even mean in your philosophical system?

        Like, I dunno, Kant distinguishes between noumena and phenomena but he doesn’t then say that therefore it’s all a goddamn free-for-all where you can just say that lies are truth now, which seems to be your position.

        Hence me saying “listen to the people telling you that you are wrong about your entire epistemic framework”.

        • Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          that’s not even close to what I said. You’re mixing up epistemology with moral reasoning. I never said “lies are truth.” I said perception shapes truth in politics. There’s a difference between understanding how framing works and throwing reality out the window.

          Kant separated noumena and phenomena, that’s literally the whole point. we don’t get direct access to the thing in itself. We interact with how it appears. That doesn’t mean free for all, it means we operate off perception and agreement, not perfect access to reality.