Stephen Deagle

@Animegoy008 @ArtemisConsort The sheer irony of him arguing for pragmatism and your knee-jerk reaction is to launch off on an identitarian purity spiral.

@ArtemisConsort White identity to me is about a base tribal loyalty, a kinship connection, basic self interest, and a communal or spiritual longing. The IQ obsession is a detriment and always attracts the people least invested in the overall success and thriving of the collective.

@hanaamurakami Tentacles

As a Japanese person, I’m curious what’s the first thing that pops into your head when you think of Japan? 🧐 Like how people think of “nukes” when they think of America or “carpets” when they think of Iran.

Equating ancient Chinese trial and error with the systematic deductive falsifiable proto-scientific method the Greeks pioneered is beyond historically illiterate. It's downright shamefully revealing. Trial and error is universal, my brother in Christ. *Every* culture tinkered. But the Greeks formalized it into something revolutionary. Axiomatic logic from Euclid. Syllogistic reasoning from Aristotle. Relentless skeptical questioning from Socrates. And the pursuit of universal causal explanations detached from myth or authority. Chinese knowledge advanced pragmatically through pattern matching like yin yang and five elements plus empirical accumulation. But it rarely produced formal deductive proofs controlled experiments to isolate variables or institutional debate that drove Greek inquiry to paradigm shifting abstraction. Your examples are laughably misinformed. Variolation was folk humoral practice not exactly immunology. Ginger gave partial scurvy relief not Lind controlled proof. The Grand Canal showed imperial scale not theoretical breakthrough. Confucian harmony preserved stability and meritocracy but suppressed the dynamics and metaphysics that fueled rights democracy and political rupture. CCP leaders devour Plato and Aristotle today precisely because they reject your one to one equivalence. They want the civilizational rocket fuel we are discarding. Your swap is pure oikophobic delusion. It proves that absurd confidence regarding absurd claims is usually a big red flag.

Your command of the intellectual nomenclature is impressive, but that's all it is, and all it represents. The idea that you are laying claim to the disciplines of rationalism, logic, skepticism, even more arcane fields of academic discussion like epistemology and metaphysics...they are just a naming convention on your behalf. I don't know the Chinese equivalent, and perhaps nothing directly exists in name but it clearly does in practice, the evidence is everywhere. The same concepts were clearly understood and clearly being practiced by the Chinese even if they didn't lay claim to the field in the same way as you are doing. How can you claim to the field of empiricism, say, when Chinese medicine had long been a sufficient enough judge of cause and effect to understand, for instance, the rudiments of immunology centuries before we "discovered" them? Likewise, we "discovered" the cure for scurvy through citrus fruits - the delivery mechanism for the curative vitamin C - in the 17th century. But the Chinese used ginger root extracts (high in vitamin C) for the treatment of the same condition, so that their sailors had been able to fend off scurvy from about the 4th century AD? Our feats of engineering, perhaps too practical an intellectual field to earn your praise (if your list is anything to go by) but nontheless incredibly impressive and moreover, a field that brought scientific and technical achievement into the practical world for the benefit of people - something meaningful, not mere academic pomp - well you only need to look at the building of the grand canal. 1,000 miles of artificial waterway long before European engineering had reached its apogee and was capable of doing likewise. And this is not even to speak of the agriculture, which has been renowned for thousands of years. Perhaps the feeding of the masses doesn't concern you and perhaps it didn't concern Aristotle, but then look at what happened to the ancient Greeks - how much evidence for the same exists in the modern day iteration? Confucian moral order was the perfect union between logic and ethics, because they were seen - correctly - as perfectly in harmony. Many of the disciplines you spouted off were happy to waste countless hours on meaningless discussions of what is or isn't good, or whether man has free will. I consider these discussions intellectually enlivening, sure, but they don't represent anything of substance and they faded into obscurity for many centuries after the Greeks and other intellectuals of antiquity fell to ruin. The Chinese did not fall, no ruination ever destroyed their continuous intellectual class, which was vast and meritocratic before the concept had even taken root in the West. All could and did aspire to the Confucian entrance examination system, so long as they were literate, they were free to enter. You mentioned tragedy, but you didn't mention meritocracy. Perhaps that is telling, perhaps not. I look up to Chinese intellectualism because it has always been it's own most demanding critic, and such bloviations as yours would be unthinkable, because it is improper. We should demand more of ourselves. I certainly do.

Do you understand how significant this is? The Chinese government realized the stories that made the West has given the West a massive civilizational advantage. But since the postmodern West largely abandoned those stories, the Chinese see an opportunity. If they could build upon the wisdom of those stories while we deconstruct them, they believe they can gain a civilizational advantage.

You need tk have it spelled out why treating the Chinese canon as a one-to-one swap for the West's is peak stupidity? Really? Confucius, for instance, gave ritual, harmony, and top-down order. Taoism the opposite: effortlessness, novelty, openness. The West, though? Gave logic, skepticism, tragedy, empiricism, rationalism, epistemology, metaphysics, ontology, teleology... oh, and the open society *that actually conquered reality.* China knows they’re not equivalent. That’s why the CCP is frantically translating Plato, Aristotle, and Thucydides while we burn ours. Your “nothing new here” take is exactly the civilizational self-own they’re exploiting. Exactly, ironically, the oikophobic outcome of that Western self-questioning sans the depth of thought said Canon provides to rein it in.

@DeagleStephen @PaulAnleitner you're free to explain yourself, not sure I'll be convinced but I'm open to hearing your arguments

@Gnosiser @PaulAnleitner That is the most brain dead take imaginable. Mind-numbingly misinformed. How can you possibly say something so utterly, unbelievably wrong with such confidence. My brother in Christ. Get real.

@PaulAnleitner There is nothing to be learned from them that Confucius and other Chinese philospher-scholars hadn't understood and demonstrated perfectly well They might be hoping to understand the West better, and good luck to them with that, because we are a far cry from those days

@sleepy_devo And there we have it. Dev just couldn't withstand the unmatched power of Canadian lib-brained but-actually-ism.

was it ever confirmed beyond libs of tiktok shitting herself that this was a BOMB? it looks like a fucking rock

It's worse. We didn't actually have to move on because, unlike the rest of the world, even in the Middle Ages what made Europe unique is girls *weren't* married off to older men. Except in extremely rare cases, tgat has always been frowned upon by Europeans, from ancient Greece up to today, with only ever rare exceptions via the nobility seeking alliances, etc.

@CultureExploreX @AmyCeleste8 And western culture evolved, we realized that not acceptable and move on… why they can’t? They embraced technology for war and terrorism weapon, use cellphones, internet, luxury, but the continuing they women as rubbish Try harder @CultureExploreX no one is from your side

But notice the women covering their heads in modesty similar to how the muslim women do so with the Hijab or Christian nuns. Shows that covering the head was once part of Victorian/Edwardian society.

@MeriTyping @CultureExploreX @AmyCeleste8 It's worse. He's *not* talking about the Middle Ages because what made Europe unique even then is girls *weren't* married off to older men except in extremely rare cases, and even then only ever via the nobility seeking alliances.

@CultureExploreX @AmyCeleste8 You’re talking about the Middle Ages while we’re living in 2026. And it’s a shame you feel the need to express your political opinion.

@CultureExploreX @AmyCeleste8 Wrong. Horribly misinformed

Those crimes are horrible ,but those kinds of practices existed in Europe as well. In medieval and early modern Europe, girls were often married very young, and the legal marriage age in several countries remained around 12 until the 19th century. Judging other civilizations by modern standards while forgetting your own history is selective memory.

@alex_kokcharov @Peter_Nimitz Nice AI rebuttal there. Nakedly, hilariously made of smoke and mirrors, to a degree only an AI could have dreamed up

This is misleading. The comparison of modern UK “speech prosecutions” (around 2,341 annually for online offenses) to Soviet arrests under Brezhnev-era Articles 70 and 190-1 (3,234 total over 23 years) looks dramatic but is fundamentally apples-to-oranges for several reasons. First, the USSR had no internet or social media. Public expression was limited to face-to-face talk, rare samizdat publications, or state-controlled channels. This drastically reduced both the volume of detectable “speech acts” and the opportunity for mass-scale offenses compared to today’s billions of daily online messages. The UK’s numbers are inflated by the sheer scale of digital communication, making raw or even per-capita counts deceptive. Second, the offenses differ sharply. Soviet laws targeted explicitly political dissent - criticism of the regime, “anti-Soviet agitation,” or “slander” of the state - with sentences up to seven years in labor camps plus exile. UK laws (Communications Act 2003 and Malicious Communications Act 1988) mostly address grossly offensive messages, threats, harassment, cyberbullying, or revenge porn - often interpersonal rather than ideological. Many UK cases involve private disputes, not political suppression. Third, the metrics don’t align. The Soviet figure counts arrests (not all leading to conviction), while the UK figure counts prosecutions (with most resulting in fines or short sentences rather than long imprisonment). Soviet repression also included extrajudicial tools - psychiatric confinement, job loss, constant surveillance - that kept official arrest numbers artificially low through pervasive self-censorship. Finally, punishment severity and context differ enormously. Brezhnev-era convictions meant years of hard labor and exile in a totalitarian system designed to crush ideological opposition. UK cases rarely lead to prison and operate within a democratic framework addressing genuine harm (e.g., stalking or hate-driven abuse). Thus the comparison ignores the internet’s transformative effect on communication volume, conflates interpersonal online offenses with political repression, and overlooks qualitative differences in freedom, enforcement, and consequences. The UK has genuine debates about overreach in speech laws, but equating them to Brezhnev-era Soviet practices distorts both realities.

USSR in the Brezhnev era prosecuted its domestic enemies under Article 70 (Agitation) & Article 190-1 (Disinformation). 3,234 people were arrested under those articles from 1962-1985. The UK prosecuted 2,341 cases of internet speech in 2022 alone, with 1,816 convictions.

@marmaduke091 That is the single dumbest community note I've ever seen. The AI moral panic is something else

This is absolutely insane 🫠 People are yearning for a LOTR game like this. We’ve somehow normalized waiting 2 years for 6 episodes of a TV show and a decade for a game sequel. Imagine getting a new GTA game every year. AI will replace the bottlenecks, not human direction.

@SKMorefield It's almost as if BOTH SIDES are packed full of hypocrites

If Kamala Harris was commander-in-chief, every last one of you newly minted neocons would absolutely be screaming to the rafters about the absurdity of starting another pointless war in the Middle East, and you know it.

@washghost1 Chirp

She votes

@bierkonceagain @katrosenfield You entirely missed the point of my claim. Context. If a word has no context, no material factor, no concern for *intent or meaning* whatsoever, then necessarily that is an admission that it has no *substance.*

@DeagleStephen @katrosenfield This isn't the take man. You can have empathy for the guy who couldn't help saying it and for the people who couldn't help being harmed from hearing it. Some people have said some truly wild things but this isn't "Blacks" acting up you dumb fuck

Writing about the BAFTAs controversy, I was initially more sympathetic to Davidson but also willing to concede that maybe this was a "difficult for all involved" situation Then I discovered *why* Davidson was in the audience, and my soul left my god damn body

@HennyMeister @katrosenfield You just performed exactly the hubris being critiqued. And you can't even see it. Amazing.

@DeagleStephen @katrosenfield So you have surveyed 5,000 responses of Black people?

I did *not* deny an accusation of generalizing. I mocked the idea that generalizing is somehow in itself undesirable/negative. Problematic? Sure. Necessarily, since it *will* miss the three out of five thousand. But *not generalizing* will miss the 4,997. Any attempt to sidestep this natural dichotomy is pure hubris.

@DeagleStephen @katrosenfield You denied accusations of generalising made by another comment, so considering your response, how are you making your distinctions when using "Blacks'"? How are you deciding what a normal, natural reaction should be?

@HennyMeister @katrosenfield It was exactly what the normal, natural reaction to the word ought to be. Momentary surprise, befuddlement, then regathering composure and moving along. How ironic that you should highlight this.

@DeagleStephen @katrosenfield Was the reaction of the speakers on stage performative?

@TrulyyRaee @dissidentwest That's my point, genius. They only do if you are a lunatic begging to be offended. You can clearly hear the kid say that's what he said. At least, if you have *any* experience with people with special needs you can hear it plain as day.

@DeagleStephen @dissidentwest right because mickey mouse and “n!gger” sound totally alike

This tourettes clown show isn't the first time that they've shown us they either don't care or are incapable of understanding that disabled people can't be held responsible for their words the same way non-disabled people are.

Translation: "I don't understand how to follow the internal logic of an argument, so I lean on lobbing magic words at my inerlocutors and pray their dark curses smite the heathens rightly." Context. If a word has no context, no material factor, no concern for intent or meaning whatsoever, then necessarily that is an admission that it has no *substance.*

@DeagleStephen @EvanCull @katrosenfield The damage you’re causing to John Davidson by co-opting his disability to use for your overt racism is appalling. You disgust me.

@901Meg @katrosenfield And a naked ad hominem to boot? Your sagacious wit knows no bounds.

@DeagleStephen @katrosenfield Stephen, it’s incredibly obvious to all of us that you engage in racism and misogyny because you’re deeply insecure. You’re desperate to feel powerful and because you’ve failed at that by all objective measures you yap hate from behind a keyboard. You’re a loser, and you know it.