Truth seeker

[DrZoidberg]

The moniker "truth seeker" on social media. Is that more associated with conspiracy theorists on the left or right?

It feels right wing.

What is the equivalent on the left? Is there any dead givaways? Or does one need to analyse what they're into?

 

[bilby]

On my experience, people who call themselves truth seekers are almost invariably adamant and fervent religious nuts, who believe wholeheartedly that all evidence, however contradictory, points to their own religion being the one true faith.

Such people are usually right-wing conservative Christian American simpletons, who voted for Trump, twice, and who own at least two handguns and five long guns (though usually more).

The very idea that "the truth" is small enough to be sought, and potentially found, by a single individual, strikes me as utterly laughable.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The very idea that "the truth" is small enough to be sought, and potentially found, by a single individual, strikes me as utterly laughable.

Not to nitpick but everyone is a "truth seeker". It's like being a "proud breather".

Doesn't the self title more imply that they're uniquely truth seeking and that sheeple are not?

 

[bilby]

The very idea that "the truth" is small enough to be sought, and potentially found, by a single individual, strikes me as utterly laughable.

Not to nitpick but everyone is a "truth seeker". It's like being a "proud breather".

Doesn't the self title more imply that they're uniquely truth seeking and that sheeple are not?

Well sure; The implication is also that they expect to find it (or rather, that they have already succeded). And that it is singular. And that you too should seek it, just as they did. And that doing so will elevate you above the sheeple. And that it is Jesus.

Everyone seeks truth. Only the true simpleton seeks THE truth. Which, it turns out, is Jesus.

Second Amendment Jesus, with His assault rifles and conviction that everyone should speak English, and His white skin, and pickup truck with a Confederate flag on the bumper.

I mean, we all know that's what Jesus rides these days, right? Donkeys were OK in historic times*, but obviously we've moved on since then.






* Historic times being defined as any time before the invention of the automobile; As we all know, historic times are basically all the same, with everything therein contemporary with everything else.

 

[bigfield]

What is the equivalent on the left?

There isn't one.

 

[steve_bank]

'You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!'

As an independent centrist outside of the particulars of ideology I don't see much difference between the left and right over here.

Both extremes are equally out of touch with reality. Both use the sane forms of rhetoric. The keft calls the right Nazis and fascists, he right calls the left communists.

"Left" and "right" in politics, originating from seating in the French National Assembly (revolutionaries on the left, monarchists on the right), describe ideologies: the
Left generally favors social change, equality, and government intervention (progressivism, liberalism), while the Right tends toward tradition, hierarchy, and individual liberty with less government (conservatism, capitalism). These terms map onto economic policies (social spending vs. tax cuts) and cultural issues, with the Left seeking equality and the Right emphasizing order and tradition, though specific meanings shift by country (e.g., U.S. Democrats vs. Republicans).

We have had political violence on both the left and right. We had a long stretch of political riots in Seattle in recent years by progressives,

I remember the Weathermen (left) from the 60s 70s. Terror bombing. There were others.

A former Weatherman who got tenure at a university when asked about it said he wished he had done more

Bill Ayers - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

William Charles Ayers (/ɛərz/; born December 26, 1944)[1] is an American retired professor and former community organizer. In 1969, Ayers co-founded the far-left militant organization the Weather Underground, a revolutionary group that sought to overthrow the United States government which they viewed as American imperialism.[2] During the 1960s and 1970s, the Weather Underground conducted a campaign of bombing public buildings in opposition to U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. The bombings caused no fatalities, except for three members killed when one of the group's devices accidentally exploded. The FBI described the Weather Underground as a domestic terrorist group.[3] Ayers was hunted as a fugitive for several years, until charges were dropped due to illegal actions by the FBI agents pursuing him and others.

Ayers went on to become a professor in the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, holding the titles of Distinguished Professor of Education and Senior University Scholar.[4] During the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign, a controversy arose over his contacts with then-candidate Barack Obama. Investigations by The New York Times, CNN, and other news organizations concluded that Obama did not have a close relationship with Ayers.[5][6][7][8] He is married to lawyer and law professor Bernardine Dohrn,

Weather Underground - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Weather Underground was an American left-wing Marxist militant organization first active in 1969, founded on the Ann Arbor campus of the University of Michigan.[2][page needed] Originally known as the Weathermen, or simply Weatherman, the group was organized as a faction of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) national leadership.[3] Officially known as the Weather Underground Organization (WUO) beginning in 1970, the group's express political goal was to create a revolutionary party to overthrow the United States government, which WUO believed to be imperialist.

The kind of organizations behind Trump are not new on both left and right.

 

[WAB]

Can't say both sides, Steve. Duh!

 

[DrZoidberg]

As an independent centrist outside of the particulars of ideology I don't see much difference between the left and right over here.

Both extremes are equally out of touch with reality.

You sound like a centrist extremist

 

[DrZoidberg]

What is the equivalent on the left?

There isn't one.

"enlightened" leftists used to call themselves social justice warriors or woke. But then stopped when it got turned into an insult

 

[steve_bank]

Remember Rush Limbaugh? He had counterparts on progressive radio.

Same forms of propaganda. One progressive host got suspended for csllilng republicans Nazis once too any times.

There is craziness and irrationality on both sides.

Some of the democratic politicians' comments on the death of Kirk were hateful rants.

Away from the center the left and right are equably dangerous and destructive.

California colleges and universities have a log history of violent response to conservative speakers. In some ways the left is mare a threat to free speech than the right.

UCLA punished a list of terms to be purged. In te face of backlash they pulled it back.

To me WOKE and progressive political correctness is a threat to free speech.

Back a few years a couple of women started a food truck business in California selling Mexican food, they were white. They were hounded out o business on social media for cultural appropriation.


Mainstream media tends to highlight the extreme right and downplay the left. Fir years I have seen ANTIFA at work in Seattle, yet media pants it as harmless.

I have yet to see ANTFA violence in Seattle on national news.

During our riots some armed people took control of an area on Capitol Hill known as the CHOP Zone. Police and emergency service were kept out as well as reporters. Anarchy.

Our progressive mayor compared it to the summer of love in SF.

Resents and business in the area were terrorized. In response the mayor closed the local police precinct..

Sorry, there are differences in ideology and policy but both sides can be equally dangerous and irratio0jnal.

 

[steve_bank]

As an independent centrist outside of the particulars of ideology I don't see much difference between the left and right over here.

Both extremes are equally out of touch with reality.

You sound like a centrist extremist

Typical nonsense bullshit.

 

[steve_bank]

Adding, interdependent are growing. Independent does not equate to centrist

Voters who snub party affiliations are a rising force in America

U.S. politics sees a surge in independent voters as nearly half of Americans now identify as unaffiliated with any political party.

dornsife.usc.edu

Political scholars and pundits explore why nearly half of Americans now choose not to identify with a political party during a Dornsife Dialogue co-hosted by the USC Dornsife Center for the Political Future.

Centrists avoid the extremes. Our federal politics used to be centrist. I heard a political saying,

'Campaign on the left or right to get elected, govern from the center'.

That is gone.

 

[pood]

On my experience, people who call themselves truth seekers are almost invariably adamant and fervent religious nuts, who believe wholeheartedly that all evidence, however contradictory, points to their own religion being the one true faith.

Such people are usually right-wing conservative Christian American simpletons, who voted for Trump, twice, and who own at least two handguns and five long guns (though usually more).

The very idea that "the truth" is small enough to be sought, and potentially found, by a single individual, strikes me as utterly laughable.

Correction: voted for Trump thrice.

 

[Jarhyn]

On my experience, people who call themselves truth seekers are almost invariably adamant and fervent religious nuts, who believe wholeheartedly that all evidence, however contradictory, points to their own religion being the one true faith.

Such people are usually right-wing conservative Christian American simpletons, who voted for Trump, twice, and who own at least two handguns and five long guns (though usually more).

The very idea that "the truth" is small enough to be sought, and potentially found, by a single individual, strikes me as utterly laughable.

I think it is more complicated than that.

There are two broad methods of "truth seeking" that happen, at least in my awareness (there could be more), and you DID describe the most common version, and it is more common by far.

Other times, much more rarely, someone understands that they don't know the truth, and gets disillusioned at the idea that anyone does, even if you still believe there is some idea to the truth, especially the truths of how we ought treat one another.

The problem here is that while the truth is easy to speak, at least in context of ethics, defending that truth with axioms is dreadfully difficult, and those who "seek truth", as you said, merely want prestige rather than truth.

After all, one can very easily rattle off Fermat's Last Theorem, but it takes 100 pages of disgusting math to prove anything about it.

Things like "don't violate others' consent as much as you wish for others to not violate your consent" are super easy to say, and gross to validate. So while the truth is small enough to be "found", the path to find these small truths is so long many people drop dead of exhaustion on the road.

Most people see the pile of exhausted corpses and try to figure out a way to cheat, a way to make people think they did work without doing the work.

So they develop answers that are similar enough seeming to the real ones that most people can't tell the difference.

 

[bilby]

There are two broad methods of "truth seeking" that happen, at least in my awareness

Nah, the one you go on to describe is mere "looking for the truth", which is something completely different.

"Seeking", like "cherish", is a word which signals not only its dictionary meaning, but also an undertone of disgusting piety.