I just need a place to write down my thoughts without having to bend to the will of others. I will not censor myself and I will not take threats or destructive criticism seriously. If you have something to say about me, be constructive.
First point of the day: People talking about a shooting and how those who swear to fight racism sound racist to me.
A while back, we had the shoot of a young man who was unarmed. Instead of that it was just injustice, it was especially unjust for contemporary America because the young man was black. The issue I have with the US that before the situation is even clear, anything becomes racist and also how easily people tend to categorize others based on anything that makes them different to a standard. While the Ferguson case may be based on race according to some sources, not all cops are racist. Many cops just tend to be trigger happy and use lethal force when they do not need it. To some cops in the US, just everything seems to be dangerous and life threatening, even a guy pointing a candy bar.
What many fail to realize is that you do not have any necessity to categorize people just because of how they look or what their preferences are, because that doesn’t tell you if they are good or bad. Keep an eye out for more obvious clues like aggression or a drawn weapon.
Second topic of the day: People don’t read for shit
When debating with someone, there is always that one person who will take what you say or write out of context because his or her reading comprehension is disastrous or simply selective. If the comprehension is bad, then it might be that the person is (a): not very bright or (b): has bad concentration while reading. If the person is selective, then he or she is either quite the biased person (likely to be a bigot) or just a dick. While these aren’t the only possibilities, these may be the most common ones. And if a person is not very bright, will he or she still be about to successfully take part in the debate? It really depends on the level of the debate. If it is about what shade of red a firetruck is, then it is likely that even a not so bright person can still constructively take part in a debate. However if it is about discussing Karl Popper’s The Logic of Scientific Discovery, then… no. Not many people can discuss that, not very many people can even make it through the entire book due to it just being quite a hard book to read. Even I have had my difficulties with the book even though a lot of it makes very good sense. If you want to read something philosophical that isn’t all too hard to read, just pick a Socratic monologue or read Timaeus. While they may still pose a specific difficulty, personally, I would consider them to be less difficult. But to one who likes to think, there are numerous works out there that may satisfy your hunger.
Three: Where I left off: Philosophy
I tend to lead more towards Nietzsche and epistemological philosophy. However I do enjoy seeing the views of others. Caution: I tend to be rather critical though, even to my own views as for me, you can never stop refining thoughts and ideas. I also deny the existence of absolute knowledge aka universal truths. Some say I am a fool for this, but I rather view that absolutes and universalities tend to stunt development. In an age where science is held high and prized, I tend to see a deceleration of development and fellowships of internet goers who value scientific research but have yet to understand what they hold dear or understand how scientific methods work. It is too common that people come across others who see scientific theories as absolutes and fully refined. The common human error: Acknowledgement without question. It would be appreciated if more people engaged in critical thinking. In honest words, it is my egotistical desire to live in a more critical world where there is no constant status quo. I desire an ever developing world where status quo just isn’t enough.
I am done for today. Maybe some other time. Got stuff to do.