2,849
edits
Bluepill: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Interjections
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
==Interjections== | ==Interjections== | ||
Being bluepilled does not necessarily equate being unintelligent. In fact, on occasion, the bluepillers' firm grasp of social cues, brilliant command of their native language and a satisfactory comprehension in various scientific disciplines in combination may make it seem that their propositions are on firm footing or make them seem clever. In a nutshell, being bluepilled means voicing opinions with the subconscious intention of pleasing your demographic or repeating a mantra that is influenced by that demographic. | |||
===Likely=== | |||
It is likely that bluepillers use discourse that follows the following narratives: | |||
*[[Coccyx fallacy]] | *[[Coccyx fallacy]] | ||
*[[Chadsplaining]] | *[[Chadsplaining]] | ||
| Line 39: | Line 42: | ||
The debating style of bluepillers can befittingly be encapsulated by looking at their communicative styles which commonly consist of things such as mottos, slogans, sound bites, one-liners and cliches. From the viewpoint of the bluepilled, such one-liners are sufficient and do not require peer-reviewed additional evidence, because many others believe likewise. A bluepilled person, when faced with a room full of 40 people wherein 30 of those 40 (i.e. 75%) voice the same opinion, will nod his or her head in agreement with the 75%. In a sense, such a thought process is demeaning to human individuality as it normalizes the essence of the word ''sheeple''. Swallowing the bluepill may also obstruct the flow of constructive dialogue. | The debating style of bluepillers can befittingly be encapsulated by looking at their communicative styles which commonly consist of things such as mottos, slogans, sound bites, one-liners and cliches. From the viewpoint of the bluepilled, such one-liners are sufficient and do not require peer-reviewed additional evidence, because many others believe likewise. A bluepilled person, when faced with a room full of 40 people wherein 30 of those 40 (i.e. 75%) voice the same opinion, will nod his or her head in agreement with the 75%. In a sense, such a thought process is demeaning to human individuality as it normalizes the essence of the word ''sheeple''. Swallowing the bluepill may also obstruct the flow of constructive dialogue. | ||
===Unlikely=== | |||
It is less likely for bluepilled people to use forms of reasoning that may challenge the concurrent narrative or that conveys deep inquisitiveness, such as: | |||
*"this has precedence ..." | |||
*"I have been consistent in this on a wide range of topics" | |||
*"I have researched this topic to the point of queasiness" | |||
*"I was attempting to look at this topic from a neutral point of view" | |||
*"I managed to put my personal feelings on this to the side" | |||
*"I am prepared to accept an uncomfortable finding as truth, even if this truth makes me feel uncomfortable" | |||
*"could that report have been influenced by financial or some other personal desire?" | |||
*"each and every single one of my beliefs could be wrong" | |||
==Antibluepillers== | ==Antibluepillers== | ||