Crown Prince Thutmose
@thutmose.bsky.social
Ḏḥwtj-ms. Jmn-ḥtp did it.
Nothing comes from nothing, and everything is the way it is because it got that way.
Nothing comes from nothing, and everything is the way it is because it got that way.
Pinned
Reposted by Crown Prince Thutmose
Learning a new language is a difficult challenge. Instead of learning concepts in isolation, which requires forming new neural circuits at the cost of time, repetition, calories, etc., try to use the etymology to identify related words and concepts that you already know in your native language.
November 16, 2024 at 1:37 AM
Learning a new language is a difficult challenge. Instead of learning concepts in isolation, which requires forming new neural circuits at the cost of time, repetition, calories, etc., try to use the etymology to identify related words and concepts that you already know in your native language.
Socrates taught Plato, who taught Aristotle, who taught Alexander the Great, who was accompanied by Pyrrho to India. After a year and a half with Jains and Buddhists, Pyrrho returned to Greece to found the school of Pyrrhonism, a form of Scepticism. Many of those Sceptic terms originate in the East.
Pyrrhonism Glossary
Key Pyrrhonist Terms.
www.pyrrhonism.org
January 10, 2026 at 12:10 AM
Socrates taught Plato, who taught Aristotle, who taught Alexander the Great, who was accompanied by Pyrrho to India. After a year and a half with Jains and Buddhists, Pyrrho returned to Greece to found the school of Pyrrhonism, a form of Scepticism. Many of those Sceptic terms originate in the East.
What I like about Buddhism is that it’s not really a religion in the Western sense. Buddha, a title, translates directly to Woke. As in, the man who awoke from the great illusion. If you’re looking for a Western equivalent, it’s probably Scepticism and radical Empiricism with some psychotherapy.
January 10, 2026 at 12:07 AM
What I like about Buddhism is that it’s not really a religion in the Western sense. Buddha, a title, translates directly to Woke. As in, the man who awoke from the great illusion. If you’re looking for a Western equivalent, it’s probably Scepticism and radical Empiricism with some psychotherapy.
A contrarian’s objective is to contradict and object. Dissent is the opposite of consent, and a pathological dissenter’s first principle is to dissent, and to never start from consensus.
January 9, 2026 at 9:31 PM
A contrarian’s objective is to contradict and object. Dissent is the opposite of consent, and a pathological dissenter’s first principle is to dissent, and to never start from consensus.
I acknowledged what you wrote, and then said that we don’t need to mention it again. Which I assumed is what you wanted.
So, now we move on to the parties and their policies. I’d have to double check, but off the top of my head, contempt for state capitalism was deemed legitimate, no?
So, now we move on to the parties and their policies. I’d have to double check, but off the top of my head, contempt for state capitalism was deemed legitimate, no?
January 9, 2026 at 8:44 PM
I acknowledged what you wrote, and then said that we don’t need to mention it again. Which I assumed is what you wanted.
So, now we move on to the parties and their policies. I’d have to double check, but off the top of my head, contempt for state capitalism was deemed legitimate, no?
So, now we move on to the parties and their policies. I’d have to double check, but off the top of my head, contempt for state capitalism was deemed legitimate, no?
Yes, I *can* acknowledge what you’re saying. You’re saying that you were wrong, and that he didn’t say that. Thank you. Now hopefully we don’t need to regress back to that.
If you recall, we discussed that he may have viewed the parties with contempt because of their state capitalist policies, yes?
If you recall, we discussed that he may have viewed the parties with contempt because of their state capitalist policies, yes?
January 9, 2026 at 8:33 PM
Yes, I *can* acknowledge what you’re saying. You’re saying that you were wrong, and that he didn’t say that. Thank you. Now hopefully we don’t need to regress back to that.
If you recall, we discussed that he may have viewed the parties with contempt because of their state capitalist policies, yes?
If you recall, we discussed that he may have viewed the parties with contempt because of their state capitalist policies, yes?
He said that they’re different, and not the same. You keep circling back to a counter-factual that never happened, and you keep trying to keep it in play.
You can’t acknowledge that what you asserted at him was false, can you?
You can’t acknowledge that what you asserted at him was false, can you?
January 9, 2026 at 8:22 PM
He said that they’re different, and not the same. You keep circling back to a counter-factual that never happened, and you keep trying to keep it in play.
You can’t acknowledge that what you asserted at him was false, can you?
You can’t acknowledge that what you asserted at him was false, can you?
There’s no if, though. That implies conditionality. He doesn’t see them the same. That’s the point. All points derive from his confirmation that he views them differently. And you refuse to validate and affirm that fact.
January 9, 2026 at 8:13 PM
There’s no if, though. That implies conditionality. He doesn’t see them the same. That’s the point. All points derive from his confirmation that he views them differently. And you refuse to validate and affirm that fact.
Some people might think that he was saying that they’re the same. You are proof of that. Others understood his meaning. I am proof of that.
It’s not like he just ignored your assertion, either. He responded to you directly to clarify any errors of communication that may have arisen.
It’s not like he just ignored your assertion, either. He responded to you directly to clarify any errors of communication that may have arisen.
January 9, 2026 at 7:59 PM
Some people might think that he was saying that they’re the same. You are proof of that. Others understood his meaning. I am proof of that.
It’s not like he just ignored your assertion, either. He responded to you directly to clarify any errors of communication that may have arisen.
It’s not like he just ignored your assertion, either. He responded to you directly to clarify any errors of communication that may have arisen.
Eh? Why would someone think that you view them the same way if you just listed different unique reasons for each as to why you don’t like them?
Just to rule this out, this isn’t a case of you thinking that “all the same” was him saying that they’re all the same, is it?
Just to rule this out, this isn’t a case of you thinking that “all the same” was him saying that they’re all the same, is it?
January 9, 2026 at 7:50 PM
Eh? Why would someone think that you view them the same way if you just listed different unique reasons for each as to why you don’t like them?
Just to rule this out, this isn’t a case of you thinking that “all the same” was him saying that they’re all the same, is it?
Just to rule this out, this isn’t a case of you thinking that “all the same” was him saying that they’re all the same, is it?
No, that’s the point. And he explicitly corrected you, and you still insist that he was saying that there’s no difference. If there was no difference, then he wouldn’t have different reasons for viewing each party in contempt.
January 9, 2026 at 7:29 PM
No, that’s the point. And he explicitly corrected you, and you still insist that he was saying that there’s no difference. If there was no difference, then he wouldn’t have different reasons for viewing each party in contempt.
We’ll decide that together. Through consensus. Did he not say that he had different reasons for viewing them with contempt? Yes or no?
January 9, 2026 at 7:19 PM
We’ll decide that together. Through consensus. Did he not say that he had different reasons for viewing them with contempt? Yes or no?
Once you acknowledge that your original point was false, and that you came in unhinged and moving the goalposts, we can discuss it. Maybe. If you disagree, we can go through it step by step. Shall we start, or are you going to back out again?
January 9, 2026 at 7:11 PM
Once you acknowledge that your original point was false, and that you came in unhinged and moving the goalposts, we can discuss it. Maybe. If you disagree, we can go through it step by step. Shall we start, or are you going to back out again?
I don’t see an acknowledgment of the fact that I just stated. Let’s go through it step by step. Together. We’ll start chronologically.
You are in accordance with that, are you not?
You are in accordance with that, are you not?
January 9, 2026 at 6:58 PM
I don’t see an acknowledgment of the fact that I just stated. Let’s go through it step by step. Together. We’ll start chronologically.
You are in accordance with that, are you not?
You are in accordance with that, are you not?
You’re demonstrating my point all over this conversation. When you don’t want to agree with something, you deflect and avoid acknowledging it.
That’s why I offer to go through it step by step. Together. I already know that you’re avoiding consensus whenever you can. That’s what contrarians do.
That’s why I offer to go through it step by step. Together. I already know that you’re avoiding consensus whenever you can. That’s what contrarians do.
January 9, 2026 at 6:45 PM
You’re demonstrating my point all over this conversation. When you don’t want to agree with something, you deflect and avoid acknowledging it.
That’s why I offer to go through it step by step. Together. I already know that you’re avoiding consensus whenever you can. That’s what contrarians do.
That’s why I offer to go through it step by step. Together. I already know that you’re avoiding consensus whenever you can. That’s what contrarians do.
You and I are in accordance with what I just said.
January 9, 2026 at 6:22 PM
You and I are in accordance with what I just said.
Almost everything that you’ve said has been an attempt to deflect from you getting caught making false claims, and then endlessly contradicting.
You know that I’m correct. I keep offering to go through it step by step with you, and you dissent on principle.
You know that I’m correct. I keep offering to go through it step by step with you, and you dissent on principle.
January 9, 2026 at 6:13 PM
Almost everything that you’ve said has been an attempt to deflect from you getting caught making false claims, and then endlessly contradicting.
You know that I’m correct. I keep offering to go through it step by step with you, and you dissent on principle.
You know that I’m correct. I keep offering to go through it step by step with you, and you dissent on principle.
Oh, looks like I struck the correct chord. No theory of mind, no arc, contrarianism. Thinking in objectives.
The Buddhist term for this is avidya, which translates to ignorance, or literally to unsee or not-see.
Uf, you have a long road of work ahead to sort through those hang ups.
The Buddhist term for this is avidya, which translates to ignorance, or literally to unsee or not-see.
Uf, you have a long road of work ahead to sort through those hang ups.
January 9, 2026 at 5:44 PM
Oh, looks like I struck the correct chord. No theory of mind, no arc, contrarianism. Thinking in objectives.
The Buddhist term for this is avidya, which translates to ignorance, or literally to unsee or not-see.
Uf, you have a long road of work ahead to sort through those hang ups.
The Buddhist term for this is avidya, which translates to ignorance, or literally to unsee or not-see.
Uf, you have a long road of work ahead to sort through those hang ups.
Echolalia too? Are you rocking back and forth right now, by any chance?
January 9, 2026 at 5:28 PM
Echolalia too? Are you rocking back and forth right now, by any chance?
What do you mean?
January 9, 2026 at 5:23 PM
What do you mean?
Not sure what you’re asking. You’ll have to clarify, but then you said that you didn’t want to talk. Kinda seems like you’re going in circles. Pathological contrarianism.
January 9, 2026 at 5:21 PM
Not sure what you’re asking. You’ll have to clarify, but then you said that you didn’t want to talk. Kinda seems like you’re going in circles. Pathological contrarianism.
It’s your question. You tell me.
January 9, 2026 at 5:18 PM
It’s your question. You tell me.
Does it matter?
January 9, 2026 at 5:15 PM
Does it matter?
Yep, there it is.
January 9, 2026 at 5:12 PM
Yep, there it is.
I’m surprised you’re still here, to be honest. We just highlighted where you veered to the right as soon as I pointed out where your question was a deflection from what we were talking about.
You’re only damaging your own cognition with the contradictions. To be clear, do you have a theory of mind?
You’re only damaging your own cognition with the contradictions. To be clear, do you have a theory of mind?
January 9, 2026 at 5:08 PM
I’m surprised you’re still here, to be honest. We just highlighted where you veered to the right as soon as I pointed out where your question was a deflection from what we were talking about.
You’re only damaging your own cognition with the contradictions. To be clear, do you have a theory of mind?
You’re only damaging your own cognition with the contradictions. To be clear, do you have a theory of mind?