The only thing you need to know about Richard Dawkins is that he’s an open eugenicist who routinely sides with nazism. // I don’t trust anyone who calls themselves a scientist yet advocates for fascist pseudoscience.
“I didn’t read the article. I don’t even know what it is about. But who cares, I need to witch hunt! Also I won’t provide evidence or source backing my claim because I expect people reading my comment to be gullible trash lacking human-like reasoning, those things should «chrust meeeee» instead.”
I know that you’re really, really eager to contribute with the Nazi and give them a believable cover, by being the boy who cried wolf, but…
Sir, this is a Wendy’s. The article is about a computer ROM. Even if Merdolini mentioned it it would be still interesting trivia.
That’s actually convenient for me, as I can address the readers with no regards to the screeching irrational.
Guys. When denouncing someone as belonging to an undesirable group in a public space, care must be taken to rationally back up your claim, as soon as uttered. Failure to do so causes more harm than good, because this failure increase the odds of false positive, and also provide a believable cover to the very group that you’re trying to accuse.
It’s like in the story of the boy who cried wolf. Regardless of his “intentions”, by crying wolf nonstop, he covered for the wolves invading the village - because people stopped taking claims like “I saw a wolf!” seriously. The guy above, regardless of his “intentions”, is effectively contributing with the Nazi, and IMO should be treated as such.
Nota bene: I simply don’t know if Dawkins is a Nazi or not. As such I’m not going to defend or accuse him.
“I didn’t read the article. I don’t even know what it is about. But who cares, I need to witch hunt! Also I won’t provide evidence or source backing my claim because I expect people reading my comment to be gullible trash lacking human-like reasoning, those things should «chrust meeeee» instead.”
I know that you’re really, really eager to contribute with the Nazi and give them a believable cover, by being the boy who cried wolf, but…
Sir, this is a Wendy’s. The article is about a computer ROM. Even if Merdolini mentioned it it would be still interesting trivia.
Lol, not going to read this because I can instantly tell by that last line you’re just a triggered little nazi. Instant block. (bye bye!)
That’s actually convenient for me, as I can address the readers with no regards to the screeching irrational.
Guys. When denouncing someone as belonging to an undesirable group in a public space, care must be taken to rationally back up your claim, as soon as uttered. Failure to do so causes more harm than good, because this failure increase the odds of false positive, and also provide a believable cover to the very group that you’re trying to accuse.
It’s like in the story of the boy who cried wolf. Regardless of his “intentions”, by crying wolf nonstop, he covered for the wolves invading the village - because people stopped taking claims like “I saw a wolf!” seriously. The guy above, regardless of his “intentions”, is effectively contributing with the Nazi, and IMO should be treated as such.
Nota bene: I simply don’t know if Dawkins is a Nazi or not. As such I’m not going to defend or accuse him.