p/ratvaxxing

The non-falsifiable premise killed Charlie Kirk.

Please Support Aussie doctor fighting ban for challenging Covid tyranny: ‘I got it right’

No Virus. No vaccine Necessary. THIS is the truth that OBLITERATES Vaccine Fandom

The best "antivaxxer" books in the world.

Smallpox: How the British Crown used disease as a social weapon.

What do we mean by using a term like non-falsifiable premise? We mean a premise which may not be questioned, that no debate may be countenanced, for which no doubt may be tolerated. Like the Bible? Or Christianity, or Islam or other religions even.... Or God even.... seems like you're describing a general reaction of believers.

Closer to "hyperbelievers". It definitely includes those you mentioned, but most of them are actually more amenable to debate than those I'm describing. It's what happens when those people realize at some primordial level that their ideas can be apprehended through reason and demonstrated true or false rather than simply accepted as declarations or rejected from dishonorable motivation. The very act of questioning the premise becomes the action of a horrible being. They then pathologize the interlocutor as though spreading a disease. Even meeting them in the same mindspace where questions of the narrative can exist is too great a concession to  the idea that the premise could be questionable. The only option is violence, retribution, extermination.

The very act of questioning the premise becomes the action of a horrible being. They then pathologize the interlocutor as though spreading a disease. Even meeting them in the same mindspace where questions of the narrative can exist is too great a concession to  the idea that the premise could be questionable. The only option is violence, retribution, extermination. This isn't unique to the left as you're describing, either though... so it's clearly more of a human characteristic, rather than a political one.

Thank you for bringing this to light. Yes. It's very important to provide some measure of support for those, especially those who stood up in a place like Australia. It would have been so very very easy and simple to go along with the crowd and so very very hard not to. Thanks.

Agreed. But, it's clearly dominant on the left at this point in time. And, we need to consider the idea that "the left" isn't some stone sitting in a field. It's the way the left thinks which defines it. Not the causes to which it currently commits itself. It's not necessarily productive to refer to the left as anti-conservative. The defining characteristic, at least in my thinking, is the adaptation of non-falsifiable premises, with the key component being in their conceptualization of actual reality. Once upon a time this was prevalent in "religious" circles, but today is seen most often in secular thinking.