Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei has never hurt anyone you jackass dei must go gaolang > your fav hi rej hi rejj hi rejjj is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you watch for haters weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
Telling a former conspiracy theorist that they do not understand what a confirmation bias is.. is quite funny in retrospect from my point of view
The reality is, you are using the term incorrectly. That's just the reality of the situation.
I believe that the idea of the weaponization of diseases taking part in the north-american genocide side of the indigenous people of america is disputed among specialists.
Do you have ressources to explain how their values would have aligned with communism though ?
But anyway there is probably writers who published novels and such about the uchronia you mention
Do you have ressources to explain how their values would have aligned with communism though ?
But anyway there is probably writers who published novels and such about the uchronia you mention
The reality is that I had to learn how biases worked intensily in order to deradicalize from conspiracy theorism then deradicalize from the right, then to undersand leftism then radicalize toward leftism.
So no one, not even the most radical leftists get to tell me that I don't understand what a bias is. Especially from people who I know for a fact are full of it.
I explained how confirmation biases was used in my method. It's subtil, but it's there, read it.
Nothing, I believe just people trying to make me pass as someone who do not understand what I explain. Per usual.
Not particularily. It's just seems like a logical hypothesis.
In north and A lot of south america, the land was considered as a shared ressources. While territories existed I believe, private property was very different from what it was in "Europe".
On top of that, these civilizations were heavily directed toward observations, nature and a rather polytheistic approach. This, extended to 500+ years would have been to me the ideal fertile ground for the raise of a highly advanced scientists and ecological paradigms. Which would, in turn probably be the seed for a big time materialist thinking with a strong understanding of ecological and social systems all around.
This would be the perfect place to grow a new form of communist or perhaps rather anarchist way to see the world.
When I look at the current indigenous people trying to keep the anticolonial fight alive today, I see a lot of spiritualist communists. So I think that without the colonization of america, and thus with a weaker capitalism, the world would be probably lean more toward that communist approach today.
Indeed, but from what I know, sociologist are trying to show that the development of disease can't be isolated from the colonial context:
- Wars
- Forced displacements
- Famines
- Slavery
- Destruction of social structures etc.
In other words they do no say that there has been a massive weaponization of disease but rather that the colonial context demultiplied the impacts of the spreading. Showing that diseases and colonial context can't be separated as natural vs human made within that genocide of 70 millions of people.
It was a system of extermination working in tandem..
> Source - Le génocide des amériques, resistance et survivance des peuples autochtones. Marcel Grondin and Moema Viezzer (I think I arleady shared this source once, it is considered one of the best current work of documentation of that genocide)
So no one, not even the most radical leftists get to tell me that I don't understand what a bias is. Especially from people who I know for a fact are full of it.
I explained how confirmation biases was used in my method. It's subtil, but it's there, read it.
Nothing, I believe just people trying to make me pass as someone who do not understand what I explain. Per usual.
Not particularily. It's just seems like a logical hypothesis.
In north and A lot of south america, the land was considered as a shared ressources. While territories existed I believe, private property was very different from what it was in "Europe".
On top of that, these civilizations were heavily directed toward observations, nature and a rather polytheistic approach. This, extended to 500+ years would have been to me the ideal fertile ground for the raise of a highly advanced scientists and ecological paradigms. Which would, in turn probably be the seed for a big time materialist thinking with a strong understanding of ecological and social systems all around.
This would be the perfect place to grow a new form of communist or perhaps rather anarchist way to see the world.
When I look at the current indigenous people trying to keep the anticolonial fight alive today, I see a lot of spiritualist communists. So I think that without the colonization of america, and thus with a weaker capitalism, the world would be probably lean more toward that communist approach today.
Indeed, but from what I know, sociologist are trying to show that the development of disease can't be isolated from the colonial context:
- Wars
- Forced displacements
- Famines
- Slavery
- Destruction of social structures etc.
In other words they do no say that there has been a massive weaponization of disease but rather that the colonial context demultiplied the impacts of the spreading. Showing that diseases and colonial context can't be separated as natural vs human made within that genocide of 70 millions of people.
It was a system of extermination working in tandem..
> Source - Le génocide des amériques, resistance et survivance des peuples autochtones. Marcel Grondin and Moema Viezzer (I think I arleady shared this source once, it is considered one of the best current work of documentation of that genocide)
