Why am I seeing frequent posts about Andrew Tate on this sub all of a sudden?

Are the IAI people mods on this subreddit or are connected to them? They lock threads and silence people left and right under the guise of broad meaningless rules that can be interpreted in a myriad of ways. Removing comments is questionable at best, but locking threads to prevent further criticism when it’s not going in a favorable direction to the article is simply unwarranted. The amount of censorship in this subreddit is beyond astounding considering this is a philosophy subreddit. Wtf is going on here? When someone says something they don’t like, it’s gone in an instant. There was some unwarranted criticism towards a Tate piece but the mods just silenced the whole thread and removed everything. This is beyond disgusting and a serious abuse of power. Even though I liked the piece very much, the censorship and the silencing of people and their opinions is alarming.

Why can’t people talk about what they dislike and like, people have died throughout all of history to fight censorship like this, yet these mods are extremely abusive with their power. It’s a distasteful abuse of power, in a subreddit where difference of opinion and skepticism should be encouraged, not silenced. Locking whole threads and preventing people from commenting or posting is extremely backwards. It’s not a good sign for a philosophy subreddit to be like that.

Since say one this has been a religious, rather a philosophical community. Not that I would like to discuss Tate in particular.

It's funny because most articles will get through no matter their (poor) quality but original posts and comments will get blocked and deleted. I haven't been around enough to notice Tate posts. I think he is a fucking scumbag and an idiot, and I imagine you could get some fucking bad misogyny in anything related to him because hey this is reddit, and I imagine there's a point when that violates sub rules. I mean I I think it's in everyone's interest for the level of discourse to be above the 4chan shit you can find on other subreddits. Anyway I'm not familiar with the post you're talking about so I don't know if this is relevant.

Heyooo so anyone tired of all the Continental bullshit you have to engage with nowadays??

I don't think this is remotely true; the only one I can recall is the IAI one yesterday.

"Continental bullshit" as in continental philosophy? No, not really. I'm tired of vacuous, frequently politically motivated criticism of continental philosophy though.

>Are the IAI people mods on this subreddit or are connected to them?

Nope.

> They lock threads and silence people left and right under the guise of broad meaningless rules that can be interpreted in a myriad of ways.

The rules are extremely straightforward if you bother to read them. Most people who complain about the rules either seem to not have read them, or disagree with their intent. The latter is fine, but irrelevant; if you don't like this subreddit you're welcome to find another philosophy su reddit.

> Removing comments is questionable at best, but locking threads to prevent further criticism when it’s not going in a favorable direction to the article is simply unwarranted. The amount of censorship in this subreddit is beyond astounding considering this is a philosophy subreddit. Wtf is going on here?

It isn't "censorship" to remove rulebreaking comments, or at least not in any problematic sense. The rules are there to promote good discussion because anyone who has been on other subreddits or forums without any rules will notice the quality of comments is awful.

> When someone says something they don’t like, it’s gone in an instant.

This simply isn't true. If you just comment and say "This is shit" then it will be removed, yes, but that's because it doesn't meet CR2.

> There was some unwarranted criticism towards a Tate piece but the mods just silenced the whole thread and removed everything. This is beyond disgusting and a serious abuse of power. Even though I liked the piece very much, the censorship and the silencing of people and their opinions is alarming.

When the majority of a thread is filled with rulebreaking comments and is likely to continue to be such we lock the thread. The moderators are volunteers and aren't going to waste their lives removing hundreds of godawful rulebreaking comments.

>Why can’t people talk about what they dislike and like, people have died throughout all of history to fight censorship like this, yet these mods are extremely abusive with their power. It’s a distasteful abuse of power, in a subreddit where difference of opinion and skepticism should be encouraged, not silenced. Locking whole threads and preventing people from commenting or posting is extremely backwards. It’s not a good sign for a philosophy subreddit to be like that.

If you're looking for a subreddit without any rules I recommend going elsewhere, because that is not going to change here.

Mario Bunge (1919-2020), argentine-canadian physics and philosopher, was a very important XX century science philosophy specialist, similar in quality and importance of ideas to Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos and Richard Dawid. He wrote that nonsense ideas are not able to be investigated; so that, it is impossible to declare them as false (try to imagine the time you need to fly from one place to another one using Heidegger´s definition of time as "maturation of temporality").

Bunge refuses to apply scientific methods in case of moral lack and describes four distinctive authentis science features: mutability, compatibility with previous general knowledge, partial intersection with another science (at least one of them) and scientific community supervision. Science is an always mutable knowledge.

He never accepted strings theory: according to him, the consistence, sophistication and beauty are never enough in science research. String theory is suspicious of pseudosciencia. It seems to be science fiction or at least failed science. (Bunge dixit)

Bunge explains that if we´d like to explore the mind as an immaterial entity and our goal is to understand mental processes, so the shortest way is free speculation. As a consequence, the idealistic conjectures so described will be no adequate to be confirmed by cerebral research. But, in case you understand that mental activity is cerebral activity, the scientific method is inevitable. This is the basis for cognitive neuroscience. So, there is always a more or less tacit philosophy on the basis of any research.

According to his definition of science, Bunge wrote that psychoanalysis was the most important XX century scientific fraud.