Submitted by ewk in zen

I can't think of a single example of anybody disagreeing with me in my ten years of talking about Zen on social media.

It always boils down to one of these:

Ignorance: People have not studied a subject's history or history generally.

Disinformation: People knowingly try to substitute religious doctrines for historical facts.

Agnotology: People deliberately remain ignorant in an attempt to avoid facts.

There aren't significant disputes about facts and arguments at all. Ever.

It all boils down to ignorance, disinformation, and agnotology.

Interestingly, Zen culture in it's own written history, has zero interest in these topics. I don't know... maybe ignorance is a more Christian thing? Bible in Latin internalized into the culture?

−2

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Fool wrote (edited )

Interestingly, Zen culture in it's own written history, has zero interest in these topics. I don't know... maybe ignorance is a more Christian thing? Bible in Latin internalized into the culture?

Okay... So... you're not really interested in Zen?

Since, you're more interested in ignorance, disinformation, and agnotology. The concepts occupy your "mind". They bother "you". You allow them to control "your actions".

You're the"superior" you have your "facts"... or are you "nothing"?

Those ignorant masses... They won't listen. You have the "real" texts, those other texts are "unreal"! You bought yours on Amazon, much better than the free pdfs.

🐿️

8

ewk OP wrote

If you can't handle historical facts you can't claim to be interested in anything.

I get it you don't want to deal with facts.

That's just going to mean that you're a loser forever and ever.

−1

ewk OP wrote (edited )

Nothing is sweeter than getting downvoted without comment for bringing up the fact that people can't write at a high school level in defense of their beliefs...

You can't see me right now but I'm flapping my arms and making chicken noises... If you think that being downvoted is worse than being a coward?

You're mistaken.

−1

__0 wrote

Not down with people talking down to people for their level of formal education, a lot of people who may have not graduated have intimate knowledge and are often experts in fields not touched upon by education,

There's lots of fields for instance where women were excluded from academia for instance but had a much deeper knowledge of the subject matter through oral tradition and lived experience,

It's frustrating to not receive a positive reaction to posts, but also keep in mind that a lot of people browse /all and /new... And I think people don't generally respond well to accusatory posts.

6

ewk OP wrote

I don't agree.

I don't think it's possible to talk down to people who aren't educated... I freely admit that I don't know things and when people who do know those things talk to me and I engage with them so that I can explain to them my level of comprehension for the topic and learn more about it.

That's not what's going on here.

Zen is a topic that few people have ever studied but many people feel they have a right to an opinion about. It's people who think they have a right to an opinion that downvote, not people who genuinely don't know and have no horse in the race.

It's pretty easy to tell when somebody is triggered by their own ignorance: they won't raise their hand in class.

−1

TheFacelessFace wrote (edited )

Not down with people talking down to people for their level of formal education

Where did ewk do that?

You don't have to go to school to be honest and have intellectual integrity, moreover I have encountered many people with fancy degrees who are dishonest and obtuse.

For example, no one prevented you from reading the OP carefully or looking up the very term mentioned which pretty accurately covers your present attitude: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnotology

You chose--all on your own, and regardless of your education level--to ignore the substance of the post and instead speak to irrelevant and personal topics ... pretty much in fulfillment of one of the categories discussed, which demonstrates that you didn't really read the OP either.

You are educated enough to use the internet and read and speak in English, so I don't know what excuse you have for not exercising proper reading comprehension and critical thinking skills in this case ... I don't think you can blame the people that educated you in your life, I think you can probably only just blame yourself for being willfully ignorant.

Try educating yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnotology

−1

__0 wrote

for bringing up the fact that people can't write at a high school level in defense of their beliefs...

The thing I am specifically critical of is the idea that someone who hasn't graduated highschool isn't worth of being engaged with in conversation on this site, a lot of pretty articulate people never graduated highschool. Regardless of how articulate someone is it's not really fair to assume someone is ignorant just based on their schooling, especially to strangers online where you don't know their experiences with the topics at hand. I am especially critical of saying that someone is invalid because I view highschool as almost more of an ideological machine then education, something that even in my limited understanding of zen seems inherently incompatible.

6

TheFacelessFace wrote

And I think people don't generally respond well to accusatory posts.

Tough titties.

Isn't the premise of this entire platform to accuse the State of being illegitimate?

−2

Fool wrote

the premise of this entire platform to accuse the State of being illegitimate?

No... it's a forum to communicate.

6

TheFacelessFace wrote (edited )

To say it's "[just] a forum to communicate" in response to my comment is a disingenuous lie ... if not purely ignorant.

Raddle is an independent, free (as in beer), open source, not-for-profit platform managed by volunteers with shared egalitarian principles.

https://raddle.me/wiki/why_raddle

I suggest you educate yourself.

" I decided to delete my Reddit account and make a site where socialists and anarchists wouldn't get punished for talking out against fascism, joking about 'eating the rich' and sharing 'subversive' anti-capitalist memes and literature," [Ziq, the founded of raddle.me] explained.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/zm3wbj/radical-leftists-built-their-own-reddit-after-it-banned-them

−3

Fool wrote

I guess Reddit an illegitimate state then?

I could probably argue against that... that Reddit is a state... but I could argue... anything.

4

TheFacelessFace wrote

So you know what I'm talking about, but continue to obfuscate because you don't like being wrong?

You might be an agnotologist.

Sorry to pwn you.

−3

Fool wrote

Oh no! I've been pwned!

I feel like such a fool!

5

TheFacelessFace wrote

I feel like such a fool!

You're not even that.

Sucks to suck.

−3

[deleted] wrote

−2

ewk OP wrote

That's an oversimplification that only takes one framework into perspective.

Anthropologists would likely point out that social stability is another reason for religion. A personal accountability for understanding place and meaning of the self would be a third reason.

0

[deleted] wrote

−3

ewk OP wrote

I think the accountability has to come from within that's the issue.... Some people advocates for that and some people aren't.

−1

TheFacelessFace wrote

The thing I am specifically critical of is the idea that someone who hasn't graduated highschool isn't worth of being engaged with in conversation on this site

What are you talking about? Who said that?

I didn't ... Ewk didn't ... it sounds like something you made up.

Facetiously.

In fact, your vapid Concern Trolling is an exact example of what Ewk is talking about.

You're not talking about Zen, you're not talking about ignorance or education ... you're just talking about "concerns" related to fabricated issues.

You're Concern Trolling

There aren't significant disputes about facts and arguments at all. Ever.

It all boils down to ignorance, disinformation, and agnotology.

 

Regardless of how articulate someone is it's not really fair to assume someone is ignorant just based on their schooling, especially to strangers online where you don't know their experiences with the topics at hand. I am especially critical of saying that someone is invalid because I view highschool as almost more of an ideological machine then education, something that even in my limited understanding of zen seems inherently incompatible.

Ewk is not discussing assumptions, he is discussing observations.

You are the one making assumptions.

−2

Fool wrote

people can't write at a high school level in defense of their beliefs...

  • ewk, comment, in this this post
3

TheFacelessFace wrote

The claim was:

The thing I am specifically critical of is the idea that someone who hasn't graduated highschool isn't worth of being engaged with in conversation on this site

What Ewk said was:

Nothing is sweeter than getting downvoted without comment for bringing up the fact that people can't write at a high school level in defense of their beliefs...

He then states by implication that such people are "cowards".

Ewk is specifically saying that such people are worth engaging in conversation.

The thing he is criticizing is their dishonest refusal to do so.

As he already explained, this has nothing to do with education:

I don't think it's possible to talk down to people who aren't educated... I freely admit that I don't know things and when people who do know those things talk to me and I engage with them so that I can explain to them my level of comprehension for the topic and learn more about it.

You don't need to go to high school to learn how to be honest.

For example, I would guess that you are high school educated, and yet my 4 y/o son seems to exhibit much more honesty than you are willing to engage with.

And yet, here I am conversing with you ...

Sounds like something you should meditate on.

−3

Fool wrote

I would guess that you are high school educated, and yet my 4 y/o son seems to exhibit much more honesty than you are willing to engage with.

So since I'm engaging in conversation with you, you're saying that your son is more honest than yourself?

4

TheFacelessFace wrote

How is that an honest question?

−2

Fool wrote

It's a question about your honesty.

So categorically, an "honest question".

3

TheFacelessFace wrote (edited )

That's not an honest take, and I think you know it.

For example, lying about being honest is not "categorically" an "honest lie".

It's just a lie.

How else would you like to embarrass yourself in this conversation?

0

Fool wrote

Oh, I'm not embarrassed.

Embarrassment requires giving a crap.

2

TheFacelessFace wrote

You've got several comments and submissions attesting to how much you "don't give a crap" lol.

Embarrassing.

Why not just study Zen while you're here?

Why keep lying and trolling?

0