I am assuming that this trend is often connected to conservative thinking. — Tom Storm

And I'm saying, that your beliefs are respectable. When have I disrespected you? — Arcane Sandwich

Humans are animals after all. The human animal evolved from non-human animals. The human animal didn't appear ready-formed from nowhere. — RussellA

"Reuters was paid millions of dollars by the US government for ‘large scale social deception,’” Musk proclaimed in an X post that has racked up more than 76,000 shares and 35 million views. “They’re a total scam. Just wow.” ...

The contract was real, but the Orwellian phrase Musk seized on to suggest a shadowy conspiracy wasn’t what it seems. A slightly closer look would have revealed that the contract, signed during President Donald Trump’s first term, was for help defending against cyberattacks — that is, combating deception, not fueling it. And it went to a separate division of the company, not the news agency.

Musk’s misinterpretation went viral, amplified by Trump as proof of corrupt ties between the “radical left” media and the “deep state.”

The Reuters brouhaha was the latest example of what is quickly becoming a familiar playbook as Musk’s U.S. DOGE Service sweeps through federal agencies for evidence of waste, fraud and corruption. However endemic federal misspending is, Musk has repeatedly misrepresented facts on X to bolster unfounded claims of wrongdoing. Like the U.S. Agency for International Development, Politico and others before it, Reuters has been cast as a villain in a narrative spun by Musk in which nefarious left-wing schemes lurk behind programs he targets for cuts — and those who stand in the way. The world’s richest man was tapped to lead the project on the premise that he would bring his private-sector business acumen to bear on bloated government budgets. But as the owner and most followed user of X, he has also wielded a social media bully pulpit and marshaled a crowd of online loyalists to disparage and discredit each agency, program and funding recipient he targets for cuts. In some cases, the truth has been collateral damage. ...

When his DOGE employees moved this month to wrest control of USAID, Musk took to X to call the organization “evil,” “criminal” and “a viper’s nest of radical-left Marxists who hate America.” Instead of drawing on a long history of bipartisan concerns about misspending at the agency, Musk popularized false claims that USAID and other agencies were spending millions of dollars to fund the news outlet Politico, promising that the gravy train would be “deleted.” (In fact, the agencies were paying far smaller sums for subscriptions to the outlet’s “Pro” products, which provide specialized policy news to businesses and governments.) ...

With Musk using the social media platform he owns as a propaganda organ to promote his work for the Trump administration, “We’re seeing the emergence of state social media in the USA.” — Washington Post

Even if philosophical detachment doesn’t presuppose the division, does it arrive at it through some form of logical inference? — Mww

Are there good reasons, today, to burn a Quran? — flannel jesus

In TLP 6.421, does Wittgenstein write "Ethics is transcendent" or "Ethics is transcendental"?
What does Wittgenstein mean by "Ethics is transcendental"? (TLP 6.421)
Why are ethics transcendental rather than subjective or objective?
Why is conscience drawn to a transcendent source of ethics? — RussellA

6.41 The sense of the world must lie outside the world. In the world everything is as it is and happens as it does happen. In it there is no value—and if there were, it would be of no value.
If there is a value which is of value, it must lie outside all happening and being-so. For all happening and being-so is accidental.

What makes it non-accidental cannot lie in the world, for otherwise this would again be accidental.
It must lie outside the world.

6.42 Hence also there can be no ethical propositions.
Propositions cannot express anything higher.

6.421 It is clear that ethics cannot be expressed.
Ethics is transcendental.
(Ethics and æsthetics are one.)

P1 Assume that within nature there is an objective judgment of good or evil.
P2 Humans are part of nature.
P3 Each individual's judgment as to what is good or evil is particular to them and is subjective.
C1 As within nature there is an objective judgement of good and evil, yet only subjective judgments of what is good or evil within individual humans, humans are not aware of the objective judgment of good and evil. — RussellA

Evidently Wayfarer has found some sort of objective truth in the world as well as inside of his own brain. — Arcane Sandwich

In that case you will have to rename the existing "climate change" thread to be "climate change evangelism". — Agree-to-Disagree

Because otherwise we would have no possible explanation of how the watch functions. — JuanZu

there must be an ontological continuity between the clock and those movements. — JuanZu

Wayfarer knows how I feel about idealism very well. We argued about it for years! — fdrake

Bergson considers an oscillating pendulum, moving back and forth. At each moment, the pendulum occupies a different position in space, like the points on a line or the moving hands on a clockface. In the case of a clock, the current state – the current time – is what we call ‘now’. Each successive ‘now’ of the clock contains nothing of the past because each moment, each unit, is separate and distinct. But this is not how we experience time. Instead, we hold these separate moments together in our memory. We unify them. A physical clock measures a succession of moments, but only experiencing duration allows us to recognise these seemingly separate moments as a succession. Clocks don’t measure time; we do. — Aeon.co

For years, Trumpists falsely accused the DOJ of being politicized, to provide cover for Trump's criminal behavior. Now they're overtly politicizing it — Relativist

What I want you to understand is why the measuring device is necessary — JuanZu

But there must be an ontological continuity between the clock and those movements. — JuanZu

The observer is subsumed in this interaction in such a way as to make that interaction physical. So the observer is our measuring machines, like a clock, which makes the coherent state of an isolated system disappear. — JuanZu

You can know stuff about the stuff about which nothing can be known? — Banno

Kant's introduced the concept of the “thing in itself” to refer to reality as it is independent of our experience of it and unstructured by our cognitive constitution. The concept was harshly criticized in his own time and has been lambasted by generations of critics since. A standard objection to the notion is that Kant has no business positing it given his insistence that we can only know what lies within the limits of possible experience. But a more sympathetic reading is to see the concept of the “thing in itself” as a sort of placeholder in Kant's system; it both marks the limits of what we can know and expresses a sense of mystery that cannot be dissolved, the sense of mystery that underlies our unanswerable questions. Through both of these functions it serves to keep us humble.

Again, how could you know this? — Banno

If time only passes from a perspective, then clocks would be pointless. Clocks have a use becasue time also passes independently of perspective — Banno

In some possible world there are no minds. — Banno

We would not measure time because that accuracy is not given by our experience but by the clock mechanism. Hence it is the clock that measure. — JuanZu

We don't actually measure the time from the clock, the clock does the work automatically, we read that measurement. — JuanZu

appeal to authority — Banno