Бамп
Бамп
Бамп
Эй ты шо чмо борду попутал? А ну быстро ебало подставил
Поясни.
Ты шо за спиной базариш чмондель? Рыло тебе порвать мало
бить ебало без разговора признак слабого душком пидора. Противника необходимо словами загнать в такую ситуацию, когда он сам признает, что был не прав. Тогда можно бить по ебалу. Даже сопротивляться уже не будет. А если в любой непонятной ситуации лезть нарожон, то можно окзаться с пробитой башкой потом в подъезде
Говоришь ему соси хуй. Если начинает атаковать, то достаешь перцовку, заливаешь и бьешь по яйцам.
Пшел нах.
Ну давай разберем по частям, тобою написанное )) Складывается впечатление что ты реально контуженный , обиженный жизнью имбицил )) Могу тебе и в глаза сказать, готов приехать послушать?) Вся та хуйня тобою написанное это простое пиздабольство , рембо ты комнатный)) от того что ты много написал, жизнь твоя лучше не станет)) пиздеть не мешки ворочить, много вас таких по весне оттаяло )) Про таких как ты говорят: Мама не хотела, папа не старался) Вникай в моё послание тебе постарайся проанализировать и сделать выводы для себя)
Куда ты лезешь, букашка?
>Пшел нах.
Чего блять?
В начале на словах хуесосишь, можешь побычить словесно.
Начинает подходить тут же совершаешь tolchok в лицо.
Все. Дальше или побеждаешь или получаешь пизды.
Изи. Тебя оскорбили? Оскорби грязнее на порядок, но руки не распускай. За побои изи привлекают, а осокобление чести достоинства это экзотическая статья.
Задавался этим вопросом, думаю такие варианты:
Послать нахрен словами. И терпилой себя не показал и никого не ударил, соответственно никаких проблем с законом. Лучше без мата, потом можно написать заявку за мат, оскорбления и клевету
Надавить словесно законом, мол вы нарушаете общественный порядок, вызову ментов
Если чел машет руками, уже можно применить баллон/ыиз силу.
Главное не бить первым, если тебя просто обозвали без какой либо угрозы. Читал что толчек не считается ударом и можно толкнуть
Каждый случай в частности надо рассматривать.
Иногда есть вариант долго, нудно, повторяя по нескольку раз объяснить человеку что-то, иногда безрезультатно, а, иногда, можно просто снести кабину, чтобы через силу показать свою правоту. Вот и ориентируешься на свои моральные принципы и доступный пул свободного времени.
Я тебе еще раз говорю, это нихуя не подворотня, а блять живая очередь в больничке. Какие там баталии?
"Потерпишь"
>Какие там баталии?
У тебя за щекой
Ну если ты не видишь угрозу жизни и здоровью, то да, пиздить не надо.
/thread
Ну и нахуя тогда посылать, если проще забить хуй на этого еблана?
Скажи ему, что он латентный гомо ексуалист и это необузданное желание насадиться на уд толкает его на агрессию.
Вот увидишь, после такого сеанса психоанализа он уйдет читать ницше.
>Много раз читал, как разбивают кабины за обидные слова и прочее.
И решил так же пукнуть тредом на эту тему.
>Я сначала хотел развернутся и разбить ему кабину прямо там, но
жидко оподливился и обмяк, приняв оскорбление за щеку.
>но подумав я понял, что дохуя свидетелей вокруг.
Которые видели как тебя оскорбили и поставили на место.
>Потом сижу в очереди и думаю, а реально, как поступать в таких случаях?
В твоем случае так и поступать как произошло, молча принять за щеку оскорбление и сказать спасибо.
Ну давай разберем по частям тобою написанное (Рэмбо комнатный) – копипаста, которую используют в переписках и обсуждениях, чтобы задеть оппонента, оскорбить его и указать на его некомпетентность
И? Вообще похуй. Ты в начале словами отвечаешь, все норм, не ты бычить начал.
На конфликт идет он сам, решил применить насилие он первый.
Можешь предупредить что если подойдет, то ты расшатаешь ему кабину.
>Я сначала хотел развернутся и разбить ему кабину прямо там
Ты тупое быдло
>но подумав я понял, что дохуя свидетелей вокруг
И трусливое к тому же
Унылая чмоша
Ахах, так подобные бараны этого и ждут от тебя. Сначала обзывают, потом ждут ответку и пошло поехало. Потом еще окажется что ты виноват во всем и все спровоцировал.
)))))))))))))))))
>Читал что толчек не считается ударом и можно толкнуть
Наоборот же, если типок распускает руки - это дает тебе право ебашить его. Иначе он первый от толчков перейдет к ударам, и даже от непрофессионального, но точного удара в бороду можно сложиться.
Спешите видеть, Чмоклоун спасается от булинга на анонимной борде
ТЕБЕ КУДА НАДО-ТО?
@
К ТЕРАПЕВТУ?
@
БУДЕШЬ ТАК СЕБЯ ВЕСТИ, ПОПАДЕШЬ К ПРОКТОЛОГУ
посылаешь на хуй и стоишь дальше
>Ну и нахуя тогда посылать, если проще забить хуй на этого еблана?
Дать понять человеку, что ты не зассал и его дальнейшие слова могут вызвать ответочку. Промолчишь, могут продолжить тебя хуесосить, потом толкаться, хватать за руки итд.
годно,яб сомежил перед тобой, и пошел крыть хуями на борду, как и ОП сейчас.
Как вариант вполне.
Пока не дотронулись - похуй. Пусть хоть пидарасом называет, хоть я эту уважаемую профессию и не очень люблю, но слова - это хуйня. Собака лает - ветер носит. А вот если хоть дотронулся - пиздец, у меня сразу рэйдж мод, перед глазами все красное и понеслась.
Страдал из-за этого уже несколько раз, один раз еле откупился потом.
Страдал из-за этого уже несколько раз, один раз еле откупился потом.
>Ахах, так подобные бараны этого и ждут от тебя. Сначала обзывают, потом ждут ответку и пошло поехало. Потом еще окажется что ты виноват во всем и все спровоцировал.
Оп был б больнице с кучей народу. Например тебя при свидетелях, в больничке назвали пидором и начали задирать. Ты ответил, гражданин, прекратите меня оскорблять, матерится в общественном месте и вести себя неадекватно. Думаешь тебе начнут рожу бить при куче свидетелей в подобном месте? Естественно это не прокатит в круглосуточной Наливайко в час ночи на химмаше, там нужно действовать по другому
Предложи свой вариант действий
Надо было его словесно унизить, он бы полез руками махать. И тогда разбить кабину. Но аккуратно, что бы не вырубился и не дался башкой о твердый пол. Мимо боксер.
Можно после того, как он повысит голос, упасть в корчах, крича ААА, ЗА ЧТООО?. Он либо начнет бормотать что-то вроде ЭЙ, МУЖИК, ТЫ ЧО ВАЩЕ... УГОМОНИСЬ, либо вообще отойдет нахуй в сторону и постарается не отсвечивать.
Есть еще третий вариант - если он спокойно проигнорирует валяющегося и начнет решать свои вопросы в регистратуре. Но если этот вариант, то твой противник - настоящий самурай и связываться с ним не стоит 100%
Стоял в Сбере, случайно пошел не в свою кабину.
Рядом образовался жирный чухан,мне говорит - клоун сейчас моя очередь.
Я говорю мне только денег разменять.
Он говорит клоун иди отсюда и начал бычить,хотел разбить мне нос ударом головы,но я стоял на расстоянии.
Кассир увидел замес, быстро мне кричит , на денег иди быстрее отсюда.
Я думаю,что сейчас ему втащу, но сами понимаете,в Сбербанке полно народу.
К нам пошел парень начал говорить, чтобы расходились.
Охраны в Сбербанке нет.
Я огляделся вокруг, стоит толпа, бабушки,дети, женщины.
Понял,что мазы нет, лезть в драку.
Молча, положил кошелек в карман и ушел.
Жирный мне что-то кричал в след.
Пришёл домой и погуглил,что значит клоун :
Клоун на блатном жаргоне значит :
Никчемный человек, либо пассивный гомосексуалист.
Рядом образовался жирный чухан,мне говорит - клоун сейчас моя очередь.
Я говорю мне только денег разменять.
Он говорит клоун иди отсюда и начал бычить,хотел разбить мне нос ударом головы,но я стоял на расстоянии.
Кассир увидел замес, быстро мне кричит , на денег иди быстрее отсюда.
Я думаю,что сейчас ему втащу, но сами понимаете,в Сбербанке полно народу.
К нам пошел парень начал говорить, чтобы расходились.
Охраны в Сбербанке нет.
Я огляделся вокруг, стоит толпа, бабушки,дети, женщины.
Понял,что мазы нет, лезть в драку.
Молча, положил кошелек в карман и ушел.
Жирный мне что-то кричал в след.
Пришёл домой и погуглил,что значит клоун :
Клоун на блатном жаргоне значит :
Никчемный человек, либо пассивный гомосексуалист.
Адекватный человек явно так поступать не будет, значит он преследует какую-то цель и чего-то ждет от тебя в ответ. Начнешь оскорблять, считай что опустился до его уровня и уже становишься таким же виновником в этой всей ситуации.
>Охраны в Сбербанке нет.
Греф, логинься, прежде чем нанюхаться.
Дим Юрич, помирись уже с жирным пидором, на ваши разборки сил нет наблюдать.
Да это норм среди обывал, ты же стоишь в очереди, ты часть серой массы, а у лаптев оскорбления и мордобой часть обыденной жизни, наслаждайся.
Я вот звоню знакомым, те меня сразу направляют к врачам без какой-либо очереди, прекрасно. Так и других услуг касается. Просто есть лапти типа тебя и господа типа меня, каждому свое.
А чего там, Иванов-то жив? Нормально ему?
Нормально, согласно донесениям он ведет успешный бизнес.
Лучше ему номера на тачке говном замазать. Быдло оно ведь такое, пока не боится получить в кабину, хочет биться один на один, а леща схватит, не стесняясь в мусарню побежит.
Ну и слава Богу. Достаточно я хуеты продюсеру написал по-пьяни, а так-то он хороший мужик.
Я такому гнилью бью в горло. Научил один сиделец. Лежал с ним на освидетельствовании в дурке. Но бью только в крысу, начинаю мяться, мямлить, извиняюсь, а когда оппонент расслабляет сфинктер, думая, что я червь-пидор, я резко ебашу ему в горло рукой, точнее частью кисти между большим и указательным пальцем. Редко попадаю в конфликтные ситуации, так что бил так всего 4 раза. Два раз после этого уходил сразу, так как противник был значительно крепче меня, а два других раза ещё и скручивал ухо и прижимал еблом к плитке.
Бля я боюсь таких ситуаций на самом деле, потому что это самый вероятный мне вариант присесть. Занимался тайским/кикбоксингом пару лет, как ОП точно такую ситуацию хавать не буду, потому что она потом постоянно будет плавать в голове, скорее всего заэскалирую фразой а ля >ну давай псина, вот он я
И после скачковой двоечки непонятно что с ним будет. Какая вообще судебная практика в таких случаях? Все зависит от того как сильно он ебанется темечком при падении? По какой цене например должен буду компенсировать ущерб здоровью?А что если он пойдет в пиздатую зубную клинику и ему там сделают зубов на 200к+, это надо будет оплачивать или как?Страшно, я нищий.
>научил один сиделец
И ты тоже на кичу такими темпами скоро отъедешь, поехавший
Схуяли? Если самооборона, то не отъедет. С быдлом только так и надо, иначе ты на его месте окажешься.
С чего бы это? Неужели ты думаешь, что кадык так легко сломать? Если да, то ты долбоеб.
Какая нахуй самооборона, если он пишет, что первый в крысу бьёт? Разве что состояние аффекта как смягчающее, но без норм адвоката и это хуй докажешь
>Так как же правильно поступать в таких случаях?
Если ты блатной и есть связи в ментовке - хуярь пидорасов ногами, прыгай у них на голове, рычи и двигай тахзом, пусть видят что ты животное. А если ты без связей, то быстро набутылишься, быдло первое на тебя и донесёт, а менту и норм - халявная палка в ведомость.
Если занимался кикбоксингом ю, почему бы не использовать резкий неожиданный прямой удар в коленную чашечку? Эта хуйня очень освежает, лол
Все зависит от повреждений. И от его адвоката. В целом дело крайне опасное, потому что если окажется человек с деньгами и/или связями ты можешь за несколько минут славы угробить себе всю жизнь.
Ну блять, 1 на 1 же. Скажет что он первый его ударил или начал замахиваться. Не ждать же, когда этот его вынесет. В любом случае замах уже можно расценивать, как нападение.
Я не дерусь на улице, то что ты описал чисто уличный удар. Вообще ногами на улице не стану работать ни за что.
СЕЙЧАС Я ТЕБЕ ДАМ ПО ГОЛОВЕ, ТЫ ОТПРАВИШЬСЯ В КОМУ, А Я В ТЮРЬМУ. НО К ТОМУ МОМЕНТУ, КОГДА ТЫ ИЗ КОМЫ ВЫЙДЕШЬ, Я ТОЖЕ ВЫЙДУ И СНОВА ДАМ ПО ГОЛОВЕ
Так понятное дело что если нарваться на барина то пизда, но они как бы с рядовыми рашкованами особо пересекаться не будут. А если бояться, что каждый может оказаться барином, то придется как псина поджав хвост ходить не разгибаясь.
Правильно, ногами надо уёбывать оттуда поскорее.
В благовоспитанном обществе прошлого за подобные поползновения вызывали на дуэль. Вызови его на дуэль и заколи шпагой нахуй.
Bullshit" is commonly used to describe statements made by people more concerned with the response of the audience than in truth and accuracy, such as goal-oriented statements made in the field of politics or advertising. On one prominent occasion, the word itself was part of a controversial advertisement. During the 1980 U.S. presidential campaign, the Citizens Party candidate Barry Commoner ran a radio advertisement that began with an actor exclaiming: "Bullshit! Carter, Reagan and Anderson, it's all bullshit!" NBC refused to run the advertisement because of its use of the expletive, but Commoner's campaign successfully appealed to the Federal Communications Commission to allow the advertisement to run unedited.[7]
Harry Frankfurt's concept
In his essay On Bullshit (originally written in 1986, and published as a monograph in 2005), philosopher Harry Frankfurt of Princeton University characterizes bullshit as a form of falsehood distinct from lying. The liar, Frankfurt holds, knows and cares about the truth, but deliberately sets out to mislead instead of telling the truth. The "bullshitter", on the other hand, does not care about the truth and is only seeking to impress:[8]
It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.
Frankfurt connects this analysis of bullshit with Ludwig Wittgenstein's disdain of "non-sense" talk, and with the popular concept of a "bull session" in which speakers may try out unusual views without commitment. He fixes the blame for the prevalence of "bullshit" in modern society upon anti-realism and upon the growing frequency of situations in which people are expected to speak or have opinions without appropriate knowledge of the subject matter.
Several political commentators have seen that Frankfurt's concept of bullshit provides insights into political campaigns.[9] Gerald Cohen, in "Deeper into Bullshit", contrasted the kind of "bullshit" Frankfurt describes with a different sort: nonsense discourse presented as sense. Cohen points out that this sort of bullshit can be produced either accidentally or deliberately. While some writers do deliberately produce bullshit, a person can also aim at sense and produce nonsense by mistake; or a person deceived by a piece of bullshit can repeat it innocently, without intent to deceive others.[10]
Cohen gives the example of Alan Sokal's "Transgressing the Boundaries" as a piece of deliberate bullshit. Sokal's aim in creating it, however, was to show that the "postmodernist" editors who accepted his paper for publication could not distinguish nonsense from sense, and thereby by implication that their field was "bullshit".
David Graeber's theory of bullshit work in the modern economy
Harry Frankfurt's concept
In his essay On Bullshit (originally written in 1986, and published as a monograph in 2005), philosopher Harry Frankfurt of Princeton University characterizes bullshit as a form of falsehood distinct from lying. The liar, Frankfurt holds, knows and cares about the truth, but deliberately sets out to mislead instead of telling the truth. The "bullshitter", on the other hand, does not care about the truth and is only seeking to impress:[8]
It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.
Frankfurt connects this analysis of bullshit with Ludwig Wittgenstein's disdain of "non-sense" talk, and with the popular concept of a "bull session" in which speakers may try out unusual views without commitment. He fixes the blame for the prevalence of "bullshit" in modern society upon anti-realism and upon the growing frequency of situations in which people are expected to speak or have opinions without appropriate knowledge of the subject matter.
Several political commentators have seen that Frankfurt's concept of bullshit provides insights into political campaigns.[9] Gerald Cohen, in "Deeper into Bullshit", contrasted the kind of "bullshit" Frankfurt describes with a different sort: nonsense discourse presented as sense. Cohen points out that this sort of bullshit can be produced either accidentally or deliberately. While some writers do deliberately produce bullshit, a person can also aim at sense and produce nonsense by mistake; or a person deceived by a piece of bullshit can repeat it innocently, without intent to deceive others.[10]
Cohen gives the example of Alan Sokal's "Transgressing the Boundaries" as a piece of deliberate bullshit. Sokal's aim in creating it, however, was to show that the "postmodernist" editors who accepted his paper for publication could not distinguish nonsense from sense, and thereby by implication that their field was "bullshit".
David Graeber's theory of bullshit work in the modern economy
Bullshit" is commonly used to describe statements made by people more concerned with the response of the audience than in truth and accuracy, such as goal-oriented statements made in the field of politics or advertising. On one prominent occasion, the word itself was part of a controversial advertisement. During the 1980 U.S. presidential campaign, the Citizens Party candidate Barry Commoner ran a radio advertisement that began with an actor exclaiming: "Bullshit! Carter, Reagan and Anderson, it's all bullshit!" NBC refused to run the advertisement because of its use of the expletive, but Commoner's campaign successfully appealed to the Federal Communications Commission to allow the advertisement to run unedited.[7]
Harry Frankfurt's concept
In his essay On Bullshit (originally written in 1986, and published as a monograph in 2005), philosopher Harry Frankfurt of Princeton University characterizes bullshit as a form of falsehood distinct from lying. The liar, Frankfurt holds, knows and cares about the truth, but deliberately sets out to mislead instead of telling the truth. The "bullshitter", on the other hand, does not care about the truth and is only seeking to impress:[8]
It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.
Frankfurt connects this analysis of bullshit with Ludwig Wittgenstein's disdain of "non-sense" talk, and with the popular concept of a "bull session" in which speakers may try out unusual views without commitment. He fixes the blame for the prevalence of "bullshit" in modern society upon anti-realism and upon the growing frequency of situations in which people are expected to speak or have opinions without appropriate knowledge of the subject matter.
Several political commentators have seen that Frankfurt's concept of bullshit provides insights into political campaigns.[9] Gerald Cohen, in "Deeper into Bullshit", contrasted the kind of "bullshit" Frankfurt describes with a different sort: nonsense discourse presented as sense. Cohen points out that this sort of bullshit can be produced either accidentally or deliberately. While some writers do deliberately produce bullshit, a person can also aim at sense and produce nonsense by mistake; or a person deceived by a piece of bullshit can repeat it innocently, without intent to deceive others.[10]
Cohen gives the example of Alan Sokal's "Transgressing the Boundaries" as a piece of deliberate bullshit. Sokal's aim in creating it, however, was to show that the "postmodernist" editors who accepted his paper for publication could not distinguish nonsense from sense, and thereby by implication that their field was "bullshit".
David Graeber's theory of bullshit work in the modern economy
Harry Frankfurt's concept
In his essay On Bullshit (originally written in 1986, and published as a monograph in 2005), philosopher Harry Frankfurt of Princeton University characterizes bullshit as a form of falsehood distinct from lying. The liar, Frankfurt holds, knows and cares about the truth, but deliberately sets out to mislead instead of telling the truth. The "bullshitter", on the other hand, does not care about the truth and is only seeking to impress:[8]
It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.
Frankfurt connects this analysis of bullshit with Ludwig Wittgenstein's disdain of "non-sense" talk, and with the popular concept of a "bull session" in which speakers may try out unusual views without commitment. He fixes the blame for the prevalence of "bullshit" in modern society upon anti-realism and upon the growing frequency of situations in which people are expected to speak or have opinions without appropriate knowledge of the subject matter.
Several political commentators have seen that Frankfurt's concept of bullshit provides insights into political campaigns.[9] Gerald Cohen, in "Deeper into Bullshit", contrasted the kind of "bullshit" Frankfurt describes with a different sort: nonsense discourse presented as sense. Cohen points out that this sort of bullshit can be produced either accidentally or deliberately. While some writers do deliberately produce bullshit, a person can also aim at sense and produce nonsense by mistake; or a person deceived by a piece of bullshit can repeat it innocently, without intent to deceive others.[10]
Cohen gives the example of Alan Sokal's "Transgressing the Boundaries" as a piece of deliberate bullshit. Sokal's aim in creating it, however, was to show that the "postmodernist" editors who accepted his paper for publication could not distinguish nonsense from sense, and thereby by implication that their field was "bullshit".
David Graeber's theory of bullshit work in the modern economy
Ну, не знаю на счёт уличных ударов, когда занимался карате, там есть кансетцу гери и сокуто гери. В кикбоксинге такого нет?
>быдло на тебя агрится
>бьёшь быдло в будку
>быдло падает затылком на угол
>жидко пукнув умирает
>тебя скручивают и сдают в ментовку
>прилетают дузяшки и жена быдла, говорят что он был примерный человек, у него трое детей и вообще святой
>против тебя собирают классы во вконтактике, посты сообщения ЭТА МРАЗЬ СЫЧОВ УБИЛА ВАНЕЧКУ
>улетаешь к параше на 15 лет
>попутно выплачивая миллионные компенсации семье погибщего
>на зоне тебя опускают потому что у быдла был знакомый быдлан с зоны, а у того знакомый смотрящий
>- Пистон, сделай телевизор погромче, у нас тут очередной образованный, революционер...
Bullshit" is commonly used to describe statements made by people more concerned with the response of the audience than in truth and accuracy, such as goal-oriented statements made in the field of politics or advertising. On one prominent occasion, the word itself was part of a controversial advertisement. During the 1980 U.S. presidential campaign, the Citizens Party candidate Barry Commoner ran a radio advertisement that began with an actor exclaiming: "Bullshit! Carter, Reagan and Anderson, it's all bullshit!" NBC refused to run the advertisement because of its use of the expletive, but Commoner's campaign successfully appealed to the Federal Communications Commission to allow the advertisement to run unedited.[7]
Harry Frankfurt's concept
In his essay On Bullshit (originally written in 1986, and published as a monograph in 2005), philosopher Harry Frankfurt of Princeton University characterizes bullshit as a form of falsehood distinct from lying. The liar, Frankfurt holds, knows and cares about the truth, but deliberately sets out to mislead instead of telling the truth. The "bullshitter", on the other hand, does not care about the truth and is only seeking to impress:[8]
It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.
Frankfurt connects this analysis of bullshit with Ludwig Wittgenstein's disdain of "non-sense" talk, and with the popular concept of a "bull session" in which speakers may try out unusual views without commitment. He fixes the blame for the prevalence of "bullshit" in modern society upon anti-realism and upon the growing frequency of situations in which people are expected to speak or have opinions without appropriate knowledge of the subject matter.
Several political commentators have seen that Frankfurt's concept of bullshit provides insights into political campaigns.[9] Gerald Cohen, in "Deeper into Bullshit", contrasted the kind of "bullshit" Frankfurt describes with a different sort: nonsense discourse presented as sense. Cohen points out that this sort of bullshit can be produced either accidentally or deliberately. While some writers do deliberately produce bullshit, a person can also aim at sense and produce nonsense by mistake; or a person deceived by a piece of bullshit can repeat it innocently, without intent to deceive others.[10]
Cohen gives the example of Alan Sokal's "Transgressing the Boundaries" as a piece of deliberate bullshit. Sokal's aim in creating it, however, was to show that the "postmodernist" editors who accepted his paper for publication could not distinguish nonsense from sense, and thereby by implication that their field was "bullshit".
David Graeber's theory of bullshit work in the modern economy
Harry Frankfurt's concept
In his essay On Bullshit (originally written in 1986, and published as a monograph in 2005), philosopher Harry Frankfurt of Princeton University characterizes bullshit as a form of falsehood distinct from lying. The liar, Frankfurt holds, knows and cares about the truth, but deliberately sets out to mislead instead of telling the truth. The "bullshitter", on the other hand, does not care about the truth and is only seeking to impress:[8]
It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.
Frankfurt connects this analysis of bullshit with Ludwig Wittgenstein's disdain of "non-sense" talk, and with the popular concept of a "bull session" in which speakers may try out unusual views without commitment. He fixes the blame for the prevalence of "bullshit" in modern society upon anti-realism and upon the growing frequency of situations in which people are expected to speak or have opinions without appropriate knowledge of the subject matter.
Several political commentators have seen that Frankfurt's concept of bullshit provides insights into political campaigns.[9] Gerald Cohen, in "Deeper into Bullshit", contrasted the kind of "bullshit" Frankfurt describes with a different sort: nonsense discourse presented as sense. Cohen points out that this sort of bullshit can be produced either accidentally or deliberately. While some writers do deliberately produce bullshit, a person can also aim at sense and produce nonsense by mistake; or a person deceived by a piece of bullshit can repeat it innocently, without intent to deceive others.[10]
Cohen gives the example of Alan Sokal's "Transgressing the Boundaries" as a piece of deliberate bullshit. Sokal's aim in creating it, however, was to show that the "postmodernist" editors who accepted his paper for publication could not distinguish nonsense from sense, and thereby by implication that their field was "bullshit".
David Graeber's theory of bullshit work in the modern economy
> 2020
> ручной вайп
Мда пиздец конечно ваще прост
Bullshit" is commonly used to describe statements made by people more concerned with the response of the audience than in truth and accuracy, such as goal-oriented statements made in the field of politics or advertising. On one prominent occasion, the word itself was part of a controversial advertisement. During the 1980 U.S. presidential campaign, the Citizens Party candidate Barry Commoner ran a radio advertisement that began with an actor exclaiming: "Bullshit! Carter, Reagan and Anderson, it's all bullshit!" NBC refused to run the advertisement because of its use of the expletive, but Commoner's campaign successfully appealed to the Federal Communications Commission to allow the advertisement to run unedited.[7]
Harry Frankfurt's concept
In his essay On Bullshit (originally written in 1986, and published as a monograph in 2005), philosopher Harry Frankfurt of Princeton University characterizes bullshit as a form of falsehood distinct from lying. The liar, Frankfurt holds, knows and cares about the truth, but deliberately sets out to mislead instead of telling the truth. The "bullshitter", on the other hand, does not care about the truth and is only seeking to impress:[8]
It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.
Frankfurt connects this analysis of bullshit with Ludwig Wittgenstein's disdain of "non-sense" talk, and with the popular concept of a "bull session" in which speakers may try out unusual views without commitment. He fixes the blame for the prevalence of "bullshit" in modern society upon anti-realism and upon the growing frequency of situations in which people are expected to speak or have opinions without appropriate knowledge of the subject matter.
Several political commentators have seen that Frankfurt's concept of bullshit provides insights into political campaigns.[9] Gerald Cohen, in "Deeper into Bullshit", contrasted the kind of "bullshit" Frankfurt describes with a different sort: nonsense discourse presented as sense. Cohen points out that this sort of bullshit can be produced either accidentally or deliberately. While some writers do deliberately produce bullshit, a person can also aim at sense and produce nonsense by mistake; or a person deceived by a piece of bullshit can repeat it innocently, without intent to deceive others.[10]
Cohen gives the example of Alan Sokal's "Transgressing the Boundaries" as a piece of deliberate bullshit. Sokal's aim in creating it, however, was to show that the "postmodernist" editors who accepted his paper for publication could not distinguish nonsense from sense, and thereby by implication that their field was "bullshit".
David Graeber's theory of bullshit work in the modern economy
Harry Frankfurt's concept
In his essay On Bullshit (originally written in 1986, and published as a monograph in 2005), philosopher Harry Frankfurt of Princeton University characterizes bullshit as a form of falsehood distinct from lying. The liar, Frankfurt holds, knows and cares about the truth, but deliberately sets out to mislead instead of telling the truth. The "bullshitter", on the other hand, does not care about the truth and is only seeking to impress:[8]
It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.
Frankfurt connects this analysis of bullshit with Ludwig Wittgenstein's disdain of "non-sense" talk, and with the popular concept of a "bull session" in which speakers may try out unusual views without commitment. He fixes the blame for the prevalence of "bullshit" in modern society upon anti-realism and upon the growing frequency of situations in which people are expected to speak or have opinions without appropriate knowledge of the subject matter.
Several political commentators have seen that Frankfurt's concept of bullshit provides insights into political campaigns.[9] Gerald Cohen, in "Deeper into Bullshit", contrasted the kind of "bullshit" Frankfurt describes with a different sort: nonsense discourse presented as sense. Cohen points out that this sort of bullshit can be produced either accidentally or deliberately. While some writers do deliberately produce bullshit, a person can also aim at sense and produce nonsense by mistake; or a person deceived by a piece of bullshit can repeat it innocently, without intent to deceive others.[10]
Cohen gives the example of Alan Sokal's "Transgressing the Boundaries" as a piece of deliberate bullshit. Sokal's aim in creating it, however, was to show that the "postmodernist" editors who accepted his paper for publication could not distinguish nonsense from sense, and thereby by implication that their field was "bullshit".
David Graeber's theory of bullshit work in the modern economy
Bullshit" is commonly used to describe statements made by people more concerned with the response of the audience than in truth and accuracy, such as goal-oriented statements made in the field of politics or advertising. On one prominent occasion, the word itself was part of a controversial advertisement. During the 1980 U.S. presidential campaign, the Citizens Party candidate Barry Commoner ran a radio advertisement that began with an actor exclaiming: "Bullshit! Carter, Reagan and Anderson, it's all bullshit!" NBC refused to run the advertisement because of its use of the expletive, but Commoner's campaign successfully appealed to the Federal Communications Commission to allow the advertisement to run unedited.[7]
Harry Frankfurt's concept
In his essay On Bullshit (originally written in 1986, and published as a monograph in 2005), philosopher Harry Frankfurt of Princeton University characterizes bullshit as a form of falsehood distinct from lying. The liar, Frankfurt holds, knows and cares about the truth, but deliberately sets out to mislead instead of telling the truth. The "bullshitter", on the other hand, does not care about the truth and is only seeking to impress:[8]
It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.
Frankfurt connects this analysis of bullshit with Ludwig Wittgenstein's disdain of "non-sense" talk, and with the popular concept of a "bull session" in which speakers may try out unusual views without commitment. He fixes the blame for the prevalence of "bullshit" in modern society upon anti-realism and upon the growing frequency of situations in which people are expected to speak or have opinions without appropriate knowledge of the subject matter.
Several political commentators have seen that Frankfurt's concept of bullshit provides insights into political campaigns.[9] Gerald Cohen, in "Deeper into Bullshit", contrasted the kind of "bullshit" Frankfurt describes with a different sort: nonsense discourse presented as sense. Cohen points out that this sort of bullshit can be produced either accidentally or deliberately. While some writers do deliberately produce bullshit, a person can also aim at sense and produce nonsense by mistake; or a person deceived by a piece of bullshit can repeat it innocently, without intent to deceive others.[10]
Cohen gives the example of Alan Sokal's "Transgressing the Boundaries" as a piece of deliberate bullshit. Sokal's aim in creating it, however, was to show that the "postmodernist" editors who accepted his paper for publication could not distinguish nonsense from sense, and thereby by implication that their field was "bullshit".
David Graeber's theory of bullshit work in the modern economy
Harry Frankfurt's concept
In his essay On Bullshit (originally written in 1986, and published as a monograph in 2005), philosopher Harry Frankfurt of Princeton University characterizes bullshit as a form of falsehood distinct from lying. The liar, Frankfurt holds, knows and cares about the truth, but deliberately sets out to mislead instead of telling the truth. The "bullshitter", on the other hand, does not care about the truth and is only seeking to impress:[8]
It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.
Frankfurt connects this analysis of bullshit with Ludwig Wittgenstein's disdain of "non-sense" talk, and with the popular concept of a "bull session" in which speakers may try out unusual views without commitment. He fixes the blame for the prevalence of "bullshit" in modern society upon anti-realism and upon the growing frequency of situations in which people are expected to speak or have opinions without appropriate knowledge of the subject matter.
Several political commentators have seen that Frankfurt's concept of bullshit provides insights into political campaigns.[9] Gerald Cohen, in "Deeper into Bullshit", contrasted the kind of "bullshit" Frankfurt describes with a different sort: nonsense discourse presented as sense. Cohen points out that this sort of bullshit can be produced either accidentally or deliberately. While some writers do deliberately produce bullshit, a person can also aim at sense and produce nonsense by mistake; or a person deceived by a piece of bullshit can repeat it innocently, without intent to deceive others.[10]
Cohen gives the example of Alan Sokal's "Transgressing the Boundaries" as a piece of deliberate bullshit. Sokal's aim in creating it, however, was to show that the "postmodernist" editors who accepted his paper for publication could not distinguish nonsense from sense, and thereby by implication that their field was "bullshit".
David Graeber's theory of bullshit work in the modern economy
> Стоял сегодня в регистратуре, а там какой-то хуй начал оскорблять меня, мол давай быстрее козел.
Говоришь:
- Куда ты спешишь? К твоей бабе я все равно первый в очереди.
Или:
- Мужик, тебе жить осталось три вздоха по пол легкого. Наслаждайся жизнью, не дрочи мне нервы.
Или:
- Достанут из твоей задницы кабачок, Серега, не торопись. Можешь начать его переваривать, а не бухтеть.
Bullshit" is commonly used to describe statements made by people more concerned with the response of the audience than in truth and accuracy, such as goal-oriented statements made in the field of politics or advertising. On one prominent occasion, the word itself was part of a controversial advertisement. During the 1980 U.S. presidential campaign, the Citizens Party candidate Barry Commoner ran a radio advertisement that began with an actor exclaiming: "Bullshit! Carter, Reagan and Anderson, it's all bullshit!" NBC refused to run the advertisement because of its use of the expletive, but Commoner's campaign successfully appealed to the Federal Communications Commission to allow the advertisement to run unedited.[7]
Harry Frankfurt's concept
In his essay On Bullshit (originally written in 1986, and published as a monograph in 2005), philosopher Harry Frankfurt of Princeton University characterizes bullshit as a form of falsehood distinct from lying. The liar, Frankfurt holds, knows and cares about the truth, but deliberately sets out to mislead instead of telling the truth. The "bullshitter", on the other hand, does not care about the truth and is only seeking to impress:[8]
It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.
Frankfurt connects this analysis of bullshit with Ludwig Wittgenstein's disdain of "non-sense" talk, and with the popular concept of a "bull session" in which speakers may try out unusual views without commitment. He fixes the blame for the prevalence of "bullshit" in modern society upon anti-realism and upon the growing frequency of situations in which people are expected to speak or have opinions without appropriate knowledge of the subject matter.
Several political commentators have seen that Frankfurt's concept of bullshit provides insights into political campaigns.[9] Gerald Cohen, in "Deeper into Bullshit", contrasted the kind of "bullshit" Frankfurt describes with a different sort: nonsense discourse presented as sense. Cohen points out that this sort of bullshit can be produced either accidentally or deliberately. While some writers do deliberately produce bullshit, a person can also aim at sense and produce nonsense by mistake; or a person deceived by a piece of bullshit can repeat it innocently, without intent to deceive others.[10]
Cohen gives the example of Alan Sokal's "Transgressing the Boundaries" as a piece of deliberate bullshit. Sokal's aim in creating it, however, was to show that the "postmodernist" editors who accepted his paper for publication could not distinguish nonsense from sense, and thereby by implication that their field was "bullshit".
David Graeber's theory of bullshit work in the modern economy
Harry Frankfurt's concept
In his essay On Bullshit (originally written in 1986, and published as a monograph in 2005), philosopher Harry Frankfurt of Princeton University characterizes bullshit as a form of falsehood distinct from lying. The liar, Frankfurt holds, knows and cares about the truth, but deliberately sets out to mislead instead of telling the truth. The "bullshitter", on the other hand, does not care about the truth and is only seeking to impress:[8]
It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.
Frankfurt connects this analysis of bullshit with Ludwig Wittgenstein's disdain of "non-sense" talk, and with the popular concept of a "bull session" in which speakers may try out unusual views without commitment. He fixes the blame for the prevalence of "bullshit" in modern society upon anti-realism and upon the growing frequency of situations in which people are expected to speak or have opinions without appropriate knowledge of the subject matter.
Several political commentators have seen that Frankfurt's concept of bullshit provides insights into political campaigns.[9] Gerald Cohen, in "Deeper into Bullshit", contrasted the kind of "bullshit" Frankfurt describes with a different sort: nonsense discourse presented as sense. Cohen points out that this sort of bullshit can be produced either accidentally or deliberately. While some writers do deliberately produce bullshit, a person can also aim at sense and produce nonsense by mistake; or a person deceived by a piece of bullshit can repeat it innocently, without intent to deceive others.[10]
Cohen gives the example of Alan Sokal's "Transgressing the Boundaries" as a piece of deliberate bullshit. Sokal's aim in creating it, however, was to show that the "postmodernist" editors who accepted his paper for publication could not distinguish nonsense from sense, and thereby by implication that their field was "bullshit".
David Graeber's theory of bullshit work in the modern economy
КАК ТЫ МЕНЯ НАЗВАЛ? ПОВТОРИ ГРОМКО. Я НА МОБИЛУ ЗАПИШУ ЧТОБЫ ПОТОМ СЛЕДОВАТЕЛЬ СРАЗУ ПОНЯЛ ЗА ЧТО ТЕБЕ БАШКУ ПРОЛОМИЛИ.
@
ДОСТАЁШЬ ТЕЛЕФОН И ЗАПИСЫВАЕШЬ
@
ШЛЁШЬ ЕГО
@
ОГРЕБАЕШЬ
@
ПИШЕШЬ ЗАЯВУ
@
ЕГО НАБУТЫЛИВАЮТ
@
ДОСТАЁШЬ ТЕЛЕФОН И ЗАПИСЫВАЕШЬ
@
ШЛЁШЬ ЕГО
@
ОГРЕБАЕШЬ
@
ПИШЕШЬ ЗАЯВУ
@
ЕГО НАБУТЫЛИВАЮТ
Есть внутренний лоу, но он обычно бьется в бедро, иногда случайно залетает в колено. Целенаправленно на тренировках никто по колену не бьет, как в карате не знаю.
Bullshit" is commonly used to describe statements made by people more concerned with the response of the audience than in truth and accuracy, such as goal-oriented statements made in the field of politics or advertising. On one prominent occasion, the word itself was part of a controversial advertisement. During the 1980 U.S. presidential campaign, the Citizens Party candidate Barry Commoner ran a radio advertisement that began with an actor exclaiming: "Bullshit! Carter, Reagan and Anderson, it's all bullshit!" NBC refused to run the advertisement because of its use of the expletive, but Commoner's campaign successfully appealed to the Federal Communications Commission to allow the advertisement to run unedited.[7]
Harry Frankfurt's concept
In his essay On Bullshit (originally written in 1986, and published as a monograph in 2005), philosopher Harry Frankfurt of Princeton University characterizes bullshit as a form of falsehood distinct from lying. The liar, Frankfurt holds, knows and cares about the truth, but deliberately sets out to mislead instead of telling the truth. The "bullshitter", on the other hand, does not care about the truth and is only seeking to impress:[8]
It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.
Frankfurt connects this analysis of bullshit with Ludwig Wittgenstein's disdain of "non-sense" talk, and with the popular concept of a "bull session" in which speakers may try out unusual views without commitment. He fixes the blame for the prevalence of "bullshit" in modern society upon anti-realism and upon the growing frequency of situations in which people are expected to speak or have opinions without appropriate knowledge of the subject matter.
Several political commentators have seen that Frankfurt's concept of bullshit provides insights into political campaigns.[9] Gerald Cohen, in "Deeper into Bullshit", contrasted the kind of "bullshit" Frankfurt describes with a different sort: nonsense discourse presented as sense. Cohen points out that this sort of bullshit can be produced either accidentally or deliberately. While some writers do deliberately produce bullshit, a person can also aim at sense and produce nonsense by mistake; or a person deceived by a piece of bullshit can repeat it innocently, without intent to deceive others.[10]
Cohen gives the example of Alan Sokal's "Transgressing the Boundaries" as a piece of deliberate bullshit. Sokal's aim in creating it, however, was to show that the "postmodernist" editors who accepted his paper for publication could not distinguish nonsense from sense, and thereby by implication that their field was "bullshit".
David Graeber's theory of bullshit work in the modern economy
Harry Frankfurt's concept
In his essay On Bullshit (originally written in 1986, and published as a monograph in 2005), philosopher Harry Frankfurt of Princeton University characterizes bullshit as a form of falsehood distinct from lying. The liar, Frankfurt holds, knows and cares about the truth, but deliberately sets out to mislead instead of telling the truth. The "bullshitter", on the other hand, does not care about the truth and is only seeking to impress:[8]
It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.
Frankfurt connects this analysis of bullshit with Ludwig Wittgenstein's disdain of "non-sense" talk, and with the popular concept of a "bull session" in which speakers may try out unusual views without commitment. He fixes the blame for the prevalence of "bullshit" in modern society upon anti-realism and upon the growing frequency of situations in which people are expected to speak or have opinions without appropriate knowledge of the subject matter.
Several political commentators have seen that Frankfurt's concept of bullshit provides insights into political campaigns.[9] Gerald Cohen, in "Deeper into Bullshit", contrasted the kind of "bullshit" Frankfurt describes with a different sort: nonsense discourse presented as sense. Cohen points out that this sort of bullshit can be produced either accidentally or deliberately. While some writers do deliberately produce bullshit, a person can also aim at sense and produce nonsense by mistake; or a person deceived by a piece of bullshit can repeat it innocently, without intent to deceive others.[10]
Cohen gives the example of Alan Sokal's "Transgressing the Boundaries" as a piece of deliberate bullshit. Sokal's aim in creating it, however, was to show that the "postmodernist" editors who accepted his paper for publication could not distinguish nonsense from sense, and thereby by implication that their field was "bullshit".
David Graeber's theory of bullshit work in the modern economy
Bullshit" is commonly used to describe statements made by people more concerned with the response of the audience than in truth and accuracy, such as goal-oriented statements made in the field of politics or advertising. On one prominent occasion, the word itself was part of a controversial advertisement. During the 1980 U.S. presidential campaign, the Citizens Party candidate Barry Commoner ran a radio advertisement that began with an actor exclaiming: "Bullshit! Carter, Reagan and Anderson, it's all bullshit!" NBC refused to run the advertisement because of its use of the expletive, but Commoner's campaign successfully appealed to the Federal Communications Commission to allow the advertisement to run unedited.[7]
Harry Frankfurt's concept
In his essay On Bullshit (originally written in 1986, and published as a monograph in 2005), philosopher Harry Frankfurt of Princeton University characterizes bullshit as a form of falsehood distinct from lying. The liar, Frankfurt holds, knows and cares about the truth, but deliberately sets out to mislead instead of telling the truth. The "bullshitter", on the other hand, does not care about the truth and is only seeking to impress:[8]
It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.
Frankfurt connects this analysis of bullshit with Ludwig Wittgenstein's disdain of "non-sense" talk, and with the popular concept of a "bull session" in which speakers may try out unusual views without commitment. He fixes the blame for the prevalence of "bullshit" in modern society upon anti-realism and upon the growing frequency of situations in which people are expected to speak or have opinions without appropriate knowledge of the subject matter.
Several political commentators have seen that Frankfurt's concept of bullshit provides insights into political campaigns.[9] Gerald Cohen, in "Deeper into Bullshit", contrasted the kind of "bullshit" Frankfurt describes with a different sort: nonsense discourse presented as sense. Cohen points out that this sort of bullshit can be produced either accidentally or deliberately. While some writers do deliberately produce bullshit, a person can also aim at sense and produce nonsense by mistake; or a person deceived by a piece of bullshit can repeat it innocently, without intent to deceive others.[10]
Cohen gives the example of Alan Sokal's "Transgressing the Boundaries" as a piece of deliberate bullshit. Sokal's aim in creating it, however, was to show that the "postmodernist" editors who accepted his paper for publication could not distinguish nonsense from sense, and thereby by implication that their field was "bullshit".
David Graeber's theory of bullshit work in the modern economy
Harry Frankfurt's concept
In his essay On Bullshit (originally written in 1986, and published as a monograph in 2005), philosopher Harry Frankfurt of Princeton University characterizes bullshit as a form of falsehood distinct from lying. The liar, Frankfurt holds, knows and cares about the truth, but deliberately sets out to mislead instead of telling the truth. The "bullshitter", on the other hand, does not care about the truth and is only seeking to impress:[8]
It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.
Frankfurt connects this analysis of bullshit with Ludwig Wittgenstein's disdain of "non-sense" talk, and with the popular concept of a "bull session" in which speakers may try out unusual views without commitment. He fixes the blame for the prevalence of "bullshit" in modern society upon anti-realism and upon the growing frequency of situations in which people are expected to speak or have opinions without appropriate knowledge of the subject matter.
Several political commentators have seen that Frankfurt's concept of bullshit provides insights into political campaigns.[9] Gerald Cohen, in "Deeper into Bullshit", contrasted the kind of "bullshit" Frankfurt describes with a different sort: nonsense discourse presented as sense. Cohen points out that this sort of bullshit can be produced either accidentally or deliberately. While some writers do deliberately produce bullshit, a person can also aim at sense and produce nonsense by mistake; or a person deceived by a piece of bullshit can repeat it innocently, without intent to deceive others.[10]
Cohen gives the example of Alan Sokal's "Transgressing the Boundaries" as a piece of deliberate bullshit. Sokal's aim in creating it, however, was to show that the "postmodernist" editors who accepted his paper for publication could not distinguish nonsense from sense, and thereby by implication that their field was "bullshit".
David Graeber's theory of bullshit work in the modern economy
Bullshit" is commonly used to describe statements made by people more concerned with the response of the audience than in truth and accuracy, such as goal-oriented statements made in the field of politics or advertising. On one prominent occasion, the word itself was part of a controversial advertisement. During the 1980 U.S. presidential campaign, the Citizens Party candidate Barry Commoner ran a radio advertisement that began with an actor exclaiming: "Bullshit! Carter, Reagan and Anderson, it's all bullshit!" NBC refused to run the advertisement because of its use of the expletive, but Commoner's campaign successfully appealed to the Federal Communications Commission to allow the advertisement to run unedited.[7]
Harry Frankfurt's concept
In his essay On Bullshit (originally written in 1986, and published as a monograph in 2005), philosopher Harry Frankfurt of Princeton University characterizes bullshit as a form of falsehood distinct from lying. The liar, Frankfurt holds, knows and cares about the truth, but deliberately sets out to mislead instead of telling the truth. The "bullshitter", on the other hand, does not care about the truth and is only seeking to impress:[8]
It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.
Frankfurt connects this analysis of bullshit with Ludwig Wittgenstein's disdain of "non-sense" talk, and with the popular concept of a "bull session" in which speakers may try out unusual views without commitment. He fixes the blame for the prevalence of "bullshit" in modern society upon anti-realism and upon the growing frequency of situations in which people are expected to speak or have opinions without appropriate knowledge of the subject matter.
Several political commentators have seen that Frankfurt's concept of bullshit provides insights into political campaigns.[9] Gerald Cohen, in "Deeper into Bullshit", contrasted the kind of "bullshit" Frankfurt describes with a different sort: nonsense discourse presented as sense. Cohen points out that this sort of bullshit can be produced either accidentally or deliberately. While some writers do deliberately produce bullshit, a person can also aim at sense and produce nonsense by mistake; or a person deceived by a piece of bullshit can repeat it innocently, without intent to deceive others.[10]
Cohen gives the example of Alan Sokal's "Transgressing the Boundaries" as a piece of deliberate bullshit. Sokal's aim in creating it, however, was to show that the "postmodernist" editors who accepted his paper for publication could not distinguish nonsense from sense, and thereby by implication that their field was "bullshit".
David Graeber's theory of bullshit work in the modern economy
Harry Frankfurt's concept
In his essay On Bullshit (originally written in 1986, and published as a monograph in 2005), philosopher Harry Frankfurt of Princeton University characterizes bullshit as a form of falsehood distinct from lying. The liar, Frankfurt holds, knows and cares about the truth, but deliberately sets out to mislead instead of telling the truth. The "bullshitter", on the other hand, does not care about the truth and is only seeking to impress:[8]
It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.
Frankfurt connects this analysis of bullshit with Ludwig Wittgenstein's disdain of "non-sense" talk, and with the popular concept of a "bull session" in which speakers may try out unusual views without commitment. He fixes the blame for the prevalence of "bullshit" in modern society upon anti-realism and upon the growing frequency of situations in which people are expected to speak or have opinions without appropriate knowledge of the subject matter.
Several political commentators have seen that Frankfurt's concept of bullshit provides insights into political campaigns.[9] Gerald Cohen, in "Deeper into Bullshit", contrasted the kind of "bullshit" Frankfurt describes with a different sort: nonsense discourse presented as sense. Cohen points out that this sort of bullshit can be produced either accidentally or deliberately. While some writers do deliberately produce bullshit, a person can also aim at sense and produce nonsense by mistake; or a person deceived by a piece of bullshit can repeat it innocently, without intent to deceive others.[10]
Cohen gives the example of Alan Sokal's "Transgressing the Boundaries" as a piece of deliberate bullshit. Sokal's aim in creating it, however, was to show that the "postmodernist" editors who accepted his paper for publication could not distinguish nonsense from sense, and thereby by implication that their field was "bullshit".
David Graeber's theory of bullshit work in the modern economy
Много раз читал, как разбивают кабины за обидные слова и прочее. Ну и само собой, если не ответить на оскорбление ударом равно проявить слабину. Так как же правильно поступать в таких случаях? Стоял сегодня в регистратуре, а там какой-то хуй начал оскорблять меня, мол давай быстрее козел. Я сначала хотел развернутся и разбить ему кабину прямо там, но подумав я понял, что дохуя свидетелей вокруг. В результате посмотрел на него как на быдло и ушел к врачу. Потом сижу в очереди и думаю, а реально, как поступать в таких случаях?