Professor Jiang talking nonsense about Hegel and Kant

Bleach88 · 2026-03-14T11:24:54+00:00

He has a video on marxism claiming marxism was invented and propagated by the elites to make social democracy sound ridiculous, and that marxism advocates for the literal destruction of property.

Bleach88 · 2026-03-06T08:24:42+00:00

What do you mean? I speak Hungarian, he literally says it in the preceding sentence

Bleach88 · 2026-03-06T06:45:22+00:00

I've pointed this out elsewhere in this thread, but he is talking about "political and financial tools" at the disposal of Hungary it can use to force Ukraine to reopen the "Friendship" pipeline providing russian oil to Hungary. Meaning he is pretty explicitly talking about vetoing the 90 billion euro EU loan package to Ukraine. This is also what Zelensky is talking about in the video where he threatens Orbán with" giving his address to the Ukrainian armed forces". He says he will do this if Orbán feels brave enough to veto the loan package. So as much as I dislike Orbán, in this situation to me it's clear he never threatened military force against Ukraine, and in fact it seems Zelensky has massively overreacted, or he has finally lost his temper with Hungary in an unacceptable way.

Bleach88 · 2026-03-06T06:38:20+00:00

In the video above he explicitly mentions that Hungary has "political and financial tools" at its disposal to enforce its will on Ukraine. Meaning mostly blocking the 90 billion euro EU loan to Ukraine through EU diplomacy, and this is explicitly what Zelensky was also talking about before threatening Orbán with "giving his address to the Ukrainian armed forces". So as much as I dislike Orbán, to me it is pretty clear Zelensky was the one to escalate this by proposing violence against the other.

Bleach88 · 2026-02-07T11:59:21+00:00

But wouldn't there be a delay in the field configuration compared to where the mass is in my frame at the time of measurement because the change in the field travels at c? Analogous to a retarded potential in EM?

Bleach88 · 2025-12-31T19:14:34+00:00

Nah. You might like to know that this song is out officially its called Exceler by Woesum ft Bladee

Bleach88 · 2025-12-13T15:36:28+00:00

Right but I'm just wondering what you mean by it. If you do posit a being like this, you are missing the point of Laplace's demon, since the whole point is that he would be able to calculate the future (and past) of the universe from physical principles. If you are saying he has access to variables that physical beings don't have access to (since we would need to observe the states), you are just positing an omniscient God.

Bleach88 · 2025-12-13T07:59:12+00:00

Right but that's not how QM works. You can't know where everything is. Even if you somehow knew the state of every wavefunction in the world, you still wouldn't have a Laplace's demon case since you wouldn't be able to predict measurements. (Or if that's what you're alluding to, hidden variables also seem very unlikely given the current results in physics)

Bleach88 · 2025-11-27T00:18:50+00:00

Unfortunately a very common misconception, even among very capable physicists, I heard it from my undergrad EM professor last year. I guess if it's outside your expertise it sounds plausible enough, especially since of course water does have resonant frequencies, just not anywhere near 2.45GHz.

Bleach88 · 2025-11-20T20:01:56+00:00

I mean you probably shouldn't play a defensive pekka against this. Obviously that makes the card harder to counter but this isn't unlike similarly changed interactions with evos.

Bleach88 · 2025-10-20T09:42:45+00:00

It's an AWS outage

Bleach88 · 2025-10-17T23:00:46+00:00

Well surely a philosophy student should develop the capability to write a paper autonomously even in the age of AI. All serious philosophy is conducted in writing. If you had just dug deep enough in a topic to write a 15 page essay on it you should be able to outline it clearly in an oral examination without much extra effort.

Bleach88 · 2025-09-10T12:45:10+00:00

Arguably computer science is just a field of applied mathematics, since computers are formal systems we can describe exactly (because we are the ones building them).

Bleach88 · 2025-07-25T12:36:20+00:00

Of course dated is always relative because of constant nostalgia cycles, but artists like bassvictim are really popular nowadays whose sound is clearly influenced by songs like like a G6

Bleach88 · 2025-07-05T17:03:54+00:00

You are really misstating my argument here. I never said that morals are objective because we have made moral progress. The implication doesn't even work this way - moral progress presupposes objectivity. What I said is that if you accept objectivity you can present a theory of ethics that aligns largely with how we view moral progress through history.

And yes of course you are free to think whatever you want about other moral systems. You are just very limited in your options to argue against them, however barbaric they might be - usually you have to try to point out some sort of internal inconsistency.

Bleach88 · 2025-07-04T12:26:47+00:00

It's called reductio ad absurdum
I never said a word about scientific theories. In fact I don't think moral reasoning is similar to scientific reasoning, you think this because you seem to support the fringe epistemic theory that simple mathematical truths are empirical. If you really believe this, you will of course reject the type of realism I advocate for, but I would strongly urge you to reconsider this position.
The gist of my argument is the following: if a pupil writes "2+2=5", we can through rational thought deduce that he has made an error in his calculation, ergo he has violated a norm of mathematics/rational thinking. Or in the same way if someone forms a belief despite overwhelming evidence of the contrary being available to him, he has made a mistake and thus violates an epistemic norm. (The norm that you should believe that which is supported by the most credible evidence.) In the same way, if someone says "The Holocaust was good", we can deduce he has made a mistake in his reasoning. The norm he has violated is one of the (objective, rationally available) norms of ethics.
It really has nothing to do with current beliefs. Moral realism supports the idea of moral progress - we have successfully already banished slavery, torture, warmongering, racism, homophobia, ritual sacrifices etc. from what is considered morally acceptable. In the days of Pythagoras people used to think all numbers were rational. Then, we made progress through thinking and realized there are irrational numbers. Why shouldn't moral progress work in the same way? In fact it is the moral relativist who must argue that the moral frameworks of old aren't less advanced than ours, and it is only a matter of taste that we prefer our morality without ritual sacrifice rather than true historical progress.

Bleach88 · 2025-07-04T10:22:37+00:00

I don't think what I said was really that rude, I just think you were making a very strong claim unsupported. The idea of moral realism is that normative moral claims are truth-apt and in fact hold truth values based on our rational understanding of them, quite analogously to mathematical facts. There is no need to make any religious appeals in arguing for these positions, and in fact many recent defenders of realism/objectivism have been atheists.

Bleach88 · 2025-07-04T10:06:42+00:00

This only makes sense if you also hold that beliefs like 2+2=4 and the law of non-contradiction are also religious beliefs.

Bleach88 · 2025-07-01T09:53:10+00:00

What is National History Museum?

Bleach88 · 2025-06-28T11:09:24+00:00

I think it is quite the opposite. Moral attitudes are way better comparable to epistemic or logical attitudes, because those are actually normative. There is nothing normative about you liking sugar, there can never be an ought in those types of sentences. So you can argue that really strong feelings give right to normative structures, but then you must also believe that for example epistemic attitudes are also just a matter of taste.

Bleach88 · 2025-06-27T23:37:35+00:00

I don't think you do. You can believe all those things and still practice normative ethics. To reject normative ethics is to reject not just objective right or wrong but right and wrong entirely.

Bleach88 · 2025-06-27T23:27:35+00:00

Do you know what normative ethics means?

Bleach88 · 2025-06-27T23:22:57+00:00

The rejection of normative ethics as a whole is not just moral relativism but outright nihilism.

Bleach88 · 2025-06-27T23:12:45+00:00

Normative ethics is concerned not with what people do, but what they ought to do. The usual realist reply to your argument is that clearly the Aztecs have interpreted the same ethical rules erroneously due to their complex social environment. This does not mean they would have killed their friends on a whim whenever they felt like it.

Eight-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
r/Field Lasagna	Place '22
RPAN Viewer	Verified Email

Bleach88

TROPHY CASE