Thank you for your thoughtful comment and for sharing your perspective! It’s really interesting to see how you approach these questions and connect them with your faith and understanding of the world. Regarding the drawing in question, I believe that in this case, God would be like the artist who created it - the Russian artist I mentioned earlier. Only he would know whether it’s a 6 or a 9. And if we’re being very literal in recognizing that this is a drawing made by an author and that it conveys the ambiguity between a six and a nine, then in this case, God wanted it to be ambiguous. And that’s an intriguing thought! I was born and raised in the Catholic Church, so I’m familiar with Jesus’ teachings, having grown up in that environment. But today, I consider myself more of an atheist. This makes me wonder: what if God sometimes wants to be ambiguous too? Is God always assertive? Does He never speak in a more vague or ambiguous way? I think He does, and that’s part of the challenge of interpreting religions. In my philosophy, religion is a kind of playful knowledge, like a form of play, where the focus isn’t on being 100% assertive all the time but on embracing ambiguity and paradox. After all, there’s no greater paradox than the Trinity itself. How can something be three things at once? It defies logic, yet for Christians, it’s proof of God and Jesus, not a flaw. This shows how much we can appreciate paradoxes and contradictions. The difference is that some contradictions we elevate to an axiomatic status, like the Trinity, while others we discard, saying they weaken arguments. At the same time, I believe that while we embrace paradoxes in some aspects, we need to be assertive in others. For example, the commandment 'Thou shalt not kill.' There’s a time to embrace contradiction and a time to be clear and direct. I want to make it clear that I’m not questioning your faith or trying to undermine it in any way. I think it’s beautiful that you have this faith, and I’m genuinely happy that it provides you with a sense of grounding. Although I’m an atheist, I’m not anti-religion. I understand that these stories, mythologies, and beliefs are deeply important to people, giving them meaning and peace. So thank you for sharing your thoughts and opening up space for such an enriching dialogue!

You raised some very interesting points! Regarding whether ambiguity is unequivocally ambiguous, I think not always. Sometimes ambiguity exists within a context that limits its interpretations, even if it doesn’t eliminate them entirely. It can be intentional or accidental, but it’s not infinite - it fluctuates within specific possibilities. And about universality being inclusive of exclusivity? It’s paradoxical, and that’s precisely why I believe we need to look at paradoxes and contradictions more carefully, not simply discard them. For me, there are real contradictions and false contradictions, and it’s essential to study them and also study the false, rather than throwing it away without further scrutiny. This shouldn’t be such a controversial stance, considering how different logics interact with each other and how fundamental this is, for instance, to computation. I’ll explain this better in future videos, but in simple terms, the contradictions and paradoxes we encounter in reality challenge us to expand our understanding of logical structures and to recognize the limits of our usual ways of thinking like classical logic. Studying them is necessary, especially in a world where complex systems - both theoretical and practical - depend on these interactions. That’s why I believe universality cannot include exclusivity if it truly wants to be universal. It’s like Popper’s paradox of tolerance: you can't tolerate intolerance. Therefore, a minimum degree of censorship is necessary to ensure a minimum level of public debate. For example, here in Brazil, racism is a crime punishable by imprisonment. This can be shocking to Americans and Canadians who visit here, but I think it’s the right approach. It’s a real contradiction. You cannot be tolerant of intolerance. Thank you for bringing such an intriguing perspective to the conversation. It opens up a new layer of philosophical discussion and debate.

By the way, I’ve already written the text about Pan-American identity. A video about it will be uploaded soon. Thank you again for engaging!

@@victoralfonssteuck thanks! I think I'm mostly with you; certainly the Paradox of Tolerance was in the back of my head when writing the first comment, and I'm with you vis-à-vis paradox. But I'm very much against this Popper argument, at least if it is taken to mean that tolerance is real but has a natural limit. Maybe I'm the only person who takes it this way, and this is definitely my Christian Neo-Platonism talking,* but I do sort of think that in order for tolerance to really be tolerance, it has to be a sort of renunciation ethic that derives its value from a) its acceptance of its own impossibility and b) the sheer fact of the existence of that which it tolerates. Not that it such a tolerance is viable for a state or even possible for a real thing, just that it has a kind of all-or-nothing perfection to it as an ideal that makes 'intolerant tolerance' totally disanalogous to it. The paradox stays a paradox. But more practically my concern about the intolerance of intolerance argument is that, as a political reality, it just promotes either majority-on-minority violence or the intensification of existing social divides, bc it's equally applicable for both sides of every conflict. If a bigot (rightly) believes that a liberal society will not tolerate them, then they might well invoke Popper and refuse to tolerate this liberal intolerance, and vice versa. A majority-bigot society could rightly argue that tolerant egalitarians are a danger to society on account of their potential to not tolerate bigots. In fact, you could argue that that's exactly what characterizes 'anti-woke'/'silent majority' reactionary politics. Which are bad, and should be opposed - but I think we have to look to reasons other than a tolerance/intolerance dichotomy to justify opposing them. And then lastly it feels like it needs to be defined a) what expressions of intolerance are intolerable, and b) in what ways intolerance of them should be expressed. Like, I don't think anyone thinks fascists should not be allowed to exist; probably very few even believe they should not be allowed to vote or organize. At the same time, I do think there should be some state-backed social measures taken to resist fascism and prevent new fascisms from emerging; I certainly don't want to be all libertarian about this and just say anything goes or pretend they're non-issues. Pursuant to all of which, I'm very interested in what constitutes racism as a punishable crime in Brazil, given how nebulous and systemic both race and -ism tend to be. In Canada and the US there are certainly racist _acts_ that are criminal, e.g. employment discrimination, hate speech in certain contexts, but racism _as such?_ As a personal quality or opinion? And does it work? Like, are Brazilians less racist because they fear punishment? Or are you all in prison? Sorry if I'm being a bit jokey, but like you said this is very confusing for me. *I'm not sure if I mentioned before, but that's basically what I am

Thank you for your interest in understanding how racism works in Brazil! I’ll try to explain it simply. Here, there are white people and racialized people. You can commit racism against racialized people. White people do not experience racism in the legal sense, just as men do not experience sexism. Or rather, they don’t experience it in the same way, and the law reflects this understanding. For something to happen, someone needs to report you for racism. This can lead to different situations. For example, recently, my wife (a white woman) went to the market with an eco-bag, and a security guard asked her to lock up her bag-something that had never happened before. When we got home, we realized what was going on: earlier that morning, they had done this to a Black woman, who went to the police to report it. It was even in the news. The market likely started approaching white people like my wife afterward to create images showing they were applying this rule to everyone, trying to avoid accusations of discrimination. So, what determines whether someone goes to jail or not is the context. Some people are imprisoned, others pay fines, and others lose certain rights, like freedom of expression or access to communication platforms. One example is Monark, who lost his platforms for racist and n4z1 speech. Recently, a new case emerged where someone claimed that the Lei Áurea (the law that abolished slavery in Brazil in 1888) was a mistake. I truly hope they face similar legal consequences. With all due respect, I don’t quite understand this Neoplatonic view of things that seems common in the West. To me, the contradiction is real: only through censorship and self-censorship can we achieve true freedom of expression. It’s a real contradiction, and we need to grow up and deal with it. At the same time, it’s essential to build safe spaces, as you mentioned, and this involves creating clear rules, like we do in Brazil with racism. These rules are contextual, understanding the situations and applying them accordingly. That said, Brazil is not less racist because of these laws. We continue to face many problems in this regard. But, in my opinion, this doesn’t prove the system has failed. In the US and Canada, where there’s this supposedly total freedom, issues related to racism are even worse, in my view. Implementing positive discrimination policies is crucial, and it’s important to remember that everything is transitional. What we build today is meant to transform tomorrow so that the solutions of today can eventually be surpassed. PS: At the same time, Brazil is often seen as the land of impunity, where laws are known to take time to be enforced. For instance, when the law banning smoking in enclosed spaces was introduced, it took a while for people to comply. The same happened with mandatory seat belts, and now we see it with racism laws. Change is gradual here, but it does happen eventually.

@@victoralfonssteuck thanks for the explanation, not to mention the interesting anecdote. While generally being for affirmative action I am still a bit apprehensive for a few reasons, most generally being that a) racism in individuals is generally an expression/response to racism in social systems, which makes punishing it at the individual level a bit proxy-ish, and b) it really does sound to me like a good way to compound racial resentments. I'm not sure how Brazil and Canada stack up in terms of racism either; it may be an apples and oranges situation. As for Neo-Platonism, I'm not sure I know anyone outside of my grad school that would talk about this stuff with these terms. Probably most of my friends would say I'm wrong in interpreting Neo-Platonism his way too. And to reiterate, the point was to distance tolerance from actual political reality. Like basically the political expression of that ideal is pacifism, and the paradox of it usually manifests in pacifist communities and movements being extremely vulnerable to external violence or internal collapse. The more common actual political reality, or at least the best-case scenario for 'intolerance of intolerance', I would argue to not be about tolerance at all - just an enlightened majoritarianism. Conflict between groups of people in society is natural and universal; we pick sides based on ideas of justice, social stability, &c, and those judgments can be good. But we're definitely still picking a side, we're definitely still wielding political power against others based on our own judgments, and we're definitely still being intolerant, which means that we can't claim the universal ideas like tolerance and freedom that societies tend appeal to for legitimacy post-Enlightenment. I would argue that 'intolerance of intolerance' is basically just a way to try to salvage that legitimacy while denying it in practice. Which, again, is not meant to be an attack on any of these things, per se - if we are fans of political stability and minimizing violence, and I am, suppressing dangerous stuff is the way to do it. But I do think it means we have to be more cynical of our motives than the Popper formulation would have it, and I think we do have to give credit where credit is due to those who do actually practice tolerance - non-violent resisters, doomed utopians, &c. Not that we have to be all schmaltzy about them, though I'm inclined to be; just that the thing that makes tolerance that Popper would want to appeal to is what they are actually practicing

@@NateKosub64 Thank you so much for your comment and for engaging with this topic! Honestly, I have no idea what game you're referring to - I’m scratching my head trying to figure it out. How old of a game are we talking here? Now I’m really curious!

Hey man no problem. To be honest, I was thinking about doing a video on said game and discussing its elements of tripple O over the last few days. I’ll be honest, I’m a little shy haha because Id like to do the video. Then again, I may not keep you in suspense. I’m going to try doing the video today and if I don’t make progress, I’ll let you know.

@@NateKosub64 no problems, my man. Go ahead. Do the video yourself. I just asked out of curiosity. Whenever you published it, send it here. I'm curious now. I also love videogames.

@ sounds good man. so yeah, the video will take me a bit longer ahahah so I’ll just tell you. Don’t look up anything about if you haven’t played it, just play it. Its called Killer 7. If there is a way we can inbox each other, id love to carry on a private corespondance.

@@NateKosub64 you can send an email in the public email [email protected] . This email adress is from my portuguese literature project, A Última Pagina. Send me an email there. I never played that videogame before and I won't look up for it.

Hi

Thank you!

Bluesky is just twitter with less support

@@cptncutleg - It really isn't. There's just nowhere near the volume of assholes there that there was on Twitter, even pre-Musk. There's just a better culture - people have collectively decided not to be the asshole in every situation and that social pressure has got people to either behave themselves or stop engaging with those who don't. So much of Twitter is just desperate engagement-baiting now and I don't see that on BlueSky. Maybe it's because no one there thinks that they can make money from the platform?

@@cptncutleg No musk grub who only believes in hate speech.

Twitter is still the worst by far.

@@victoralfonssteuck I mean I've had 23 death threats on Bluesky and 12 Doxxings, but never had that issue on X.

I don't know Fediverse. What is is all about?

@victoralfonssteuck It's a collection of all the platforms that are connected through the ActivityPub protocol. I believe you mentioned Mastodon, that's one small part of it. It's a "universe" of platforms that federate with each other, offering things like videos through PeerTube, news and discussion through Lemmy and kbin, images through Pixelfed, and much much more. They stand out from other social media because they are built and run by the community, so there are no corporate interests, and as a byproduct, there aren't features with maximizing engagement in mind, no monetizing content, etc. It's a completely different experience seeing content driven with only the motivation of creators and the willful engagement of the users alone.

@@victoralfonssteuck mastodon, misskey, and other services that use the activitypub protocol is "fediverse."

❤️❤️❤️

If these captions annoyed you, you’re in for a treat - there are way worse mistakes in my other videos. 😂 Just so you know, I actually work, so KZbin isn’t my main focus. The goal here is to get people reading, not to perfectly nail on my TikTok captions. I use automatic subtitles and throw them on as quickly as possible. They’re just there to help a bit with my messy accent (but yeah, they’re bad, and that’s kind of the point). Oh, and if you’re curious, watch my video about the advantages of being lazy. It’ll explain everything. 😉 kzbin.info/www/bejne/iprbqIOYaqiNjpY

But they don't need one.

Thank you so much for this incredible comment! 🙌 I hadn’t heard of Chiac or these artists before, but I’m definely going after their work now. I’m currently learning French to read some authors in their original language, so discovering something like this - a blending of French and English in such a unique way - is just perfect for me. The topic of language mythologization is absolutely fascinating, too. I’ll definitely take the time to look into Haitian Creole, Hungarian, and the narratives around English you mentioned. These kinds of cultural and linguistic insights are so enriching, and I deeply appreciate you taking the time to share them with me. Honestly, comments like yours are always such a gift - I end up learning about things I’d never have found on my own. Thank you again for your recommendations and thoughts! Keep them coming; they mean the world to me. 😊

Thank you so much for your comment! I wasn’t familiar with Rajiv Malhotra’s U-turn theory before, but after looking it up, I find it fascinating. I really appreciate you bringing thinkers from your country into the conversation - it enriches my perspective and adds depth to the discussion here. The concept reminds me a bit of the cycle of commodities. For example, European companies plant coffee here in Brazil, ship it to Europe, and then sell it back to us as cappuccino for ten times the price. Or they extract minerals from here for a pittance and sell us iPhones and computers for a fortune. It’s global capitalism doing its thing, as it always does. But becoming cannibal is the opposite of that. It’s not about erasing or exploiting anyone. A cannibal recognizes the strength of the other and always makes their inspirations clear. It’s not about erasure; it’s about transformation. If we “appropriate” something, it’s because we admire it, and we make sure to give credit where it’s due. I also share your skepticism about the concept of “the West.” It’s brought a lot of misery here too, often by doing exactly what you described: erasing entire cultures, appropriating their ideas, and refusing to acknowledge their origins. What I'm aiming for with becoming cannibal is the opposite of that. If I draw inspiration from someone, it’s because I think they’re incredible - and I’m going to make sure everyone knows it. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts and introducing me to this theory. It’s added a lot to the conversation!

Thank you for taking the time to engage critically with the concept I proposed-it’s genuinely appreciated! I completely understand where you’re coming from. "Meta-stition" might come across as just a rebranding of critical thinking (and it kind of is), and you’re absolutely right to question why I felt the need to coin a new term for it. To clarify, my intention wasn’t to introduce a groundbreaking new idea, but rather to provoke thought and invite a playful critique of similar concepts like "hyperstition," as popularized by Nick Land. Land, despite his dismissal of Hegel, ironically builds much of his thinking (including hyperstition) on ideas that can be seen as inherently Hegelian-particularly in how narratives or systems unfold in a self-realizing, dialectical process. I find that tension between his critique of Hegel and the Hegelian echoes in his work quite amusing, and that’s part of what inspired me to "create" meta-stition. As a writer, my main goal isn’t to provide definitive answers or airtight philosophical systems - it’s to spark curiosity, encourage people to think critically (or laugh a little), and sometimes poke fun at the seriousness of contemporary theory. "Meta-stition" was born out of this spirit of provocation and self-awareness. In fact, the video’s background features Michael Scott from The Office as a subtle nod to his iconic line: "I’m not superstitious, but I am a little stitious." The concept is, at its core, a bit of a playful joke-more "meta" than "stition," if you will. That said, I’m thrilled that the idea made you pause and reflect critically, even if only to question its value. This exchange of ideas and critiques is exactly what I aim to foster with my work. So again, thank you for engaging - I truly appreciate your thoughtful comment!

Same! Super interesting

😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂

kzbin.infoUgkxHEUjVVC3vqX01jk5N8HN4ryOqasir2Zz?si=Cwauo1uDskwxolHT

Masturtodon

The thing with doomscrolling is that it is a product of the algorithm social media companies use since negative, arousing stories are more likely to keep users engaged. By contrast BlueSky lets users chose (or create) their algorithm. By default they show you your follower feed, which is just a chronological listing of posts from people you follow. There's also a Discover feed that BlueSky developed, but like any feed you can delete it. If you have coding skills you can create fairly sophisticated algorithms for your feeds, or you can just use feeds others have created. The main appeal for BlueSky is that it's the only social media site that gives you control over what you want to see and engage with rather than a social media company trying to get your brain addicted on cheap dopamine, negativity and outrage.