Gervais is a cunt, though.
deleted by creator
I really enjoyed some of his stuff, but then he had to go all “Haha, bloke with penis and boobs, haha funny”. It was neither funny nor clever. Just him being a boomer cunt. I don’t give a shit if you make fun of people, but at least try to be smart about it.
Seem to have missed some stuff. Any material of him in particular that hit the wrong notes?
Anti-trans shit in a netflix special.
Many people like cunts though. They have warmth and depth.
I think you meant to say “they have warmth and depth, unlike Ricky Gervais.”
For calling idiots what they are, I assume?
For being a transphobic shitbag.
He’s not transphobic for making those jokes, he’s offensive, as usual.
Some trans people live in the same kind of la la land as religious or superstitious people, and mentally block out the inconsistencies between their self image and people’s actual impressions, and rage at any suggestion of such an inconsistency. Both groups prefer to socialize with yes-men who reaffirm and reassure constantly. So when some of these people come out of their shell to aggressively reiterate pronoun compliance demands with “HER penis!”, that’s fucking funny. Even to someone who believed in protecting the right to transition and protection from violence and discrimination.
You should know where Gervais stands on the politics of this. He’s likely more liberal than you. But he’s certainly less protective of feeble minds. He’s not interested in protecting anyone from ridicule. And neither am I.
Fuck off, cunt.
Make me.
Do you have some issue with “her penis”? The inconsistency is in “logic bros” insisting this can’t be a thing, ignoring that gender is a construct and that not everyone needs or wants to live under that construct.
That you think punching down on a marginalized community is “funny” is a you problem.
Dumb quote. Facts have nothing to do with belief. There’s belief and there is justification. The facticity has little to do with justification and belief. If Ptomely was chatting you up a bar and tried convincing you the earth revolves around the sun he’d be factually correct, but lying to you since it’s not his belief and the observational justification wasn’t there. Copernicus was more correct, but the justification for Ptomely was Copernicus’s model didn’t accurately predict celestial bodies in the heavens due to it’s perfect solar orbital circle model and Promley’s wheels on wheels model around the earth.
Reasonable people have a fallible confidence. Maybe what they believe is wrong, and are willing listen to justifications for other things. The unforced force of the rational or justifiable argument causes you to change your belief. Fact is just what we called justified belief.
It’s not dumb it’s just a different take on reality (bayesian thinking). I have a model and accordingly a belief belonging to it: “given the data, how likely is it, that my current model is true?”.
So maybe you’re starting of believing an orbit has a spherical shape because it describes best your observations. But as you’re collecting data you’re noticing that an elliptic shape is more probable. Therefore you now believe the shape is elliptical.
In physics it’s often different. People start of writing down a law from first principles and see if it agrees with the data. E.g. Kepler writing down his three laws of planetary motion in an act of epiphany. Then he sees this fits the data well and is happy.
The question is philosophical: Do you believe there is some fundamental laws nature obeys or do you say I just take the model which is the most probable given the data.
But I agree that only very few people are belonging to the latter group and even fewer people in theoretical physics, where people are obsessed with “beauty” - e.g. believing orbits are being described by ellipses, not just some shape my data suggests me.
The point I’m trying to make is that there may be facts. But facts are only known to be facts by people because of an accepted argument or justification to believe that. If facts were just out there and received there wouldn’t be a difference. But the facts don’t change beliefs. Beliefs define what statements we accept as “fact,” even if not accurate. Facts don’t change beliefs. Arguments and justifications change our beliefs to accept certain statements as facts.
The only scientifically sound system of belief is agnosticism. The absence of proof is not the proof of absence.
Belief…is the insistence that the truth is what one would ‘lief’ or (will or) wish to be…Faith is an unreserved opening of the mind to the truth, whatever it may turn out to be. Faith has no preconceptions; it is a plunge into the unknown. Belief clings, but faith let’s go…faith is the essential virtue of science, and likewise of any religion that is not self-deception
Alan Watts
Cool quote. The problem is the people who claim to have faith use faith as an excuse to cling to a belief even after facts have proven otherwise. “But I still have faith X is true.” despite the facts proving otherwise. There in lies the problem.
Faith is an unreserved opening of the mind to the truth, whatever it may turn out to be.
No that’s science.
Faith is belief in something despite a lack of supporting evidence.
But what is a fact, and what does it mean to believe something?
