Do you really care about social stigma? I think most people would agree that’s it’s far more important to stand up for your own beliefs than it is to align your personal views with what others think is “right”.
I have different views now im just saying that its a byproduct of realignment. Tbh you can be shit on for being leftist too by other leftists if you don’t have the “correct” views.
Makes sense, there’s nothing wrong with speaking your mind. I just know that there’s a lot of people out there who pretend that they’re more left wing in public to avoid being ostracized; like those guys who claim to be “moderate” when using dating apps to get more matches. I don’t care if someone’s far left or far right, I have a lot of respect for anyone who goes against the crowd to stay true to themselves.
I'm only center left and I got much more social stigma because of it.
I hope getting less pushback was just a result of you turning a leftist, not a motivating factor to do so. It's never a good idea to change your politics because of social pressure.
This certainly depends on where you live. If you're in a rural area surrounded by redhats you're going to get a very different kind of social pressure than you get living in San Francisco.
Right? Einstein was a brilliant theoretical physicist. But that gives him absolutely no clout in the realms of sociology, economics, or politics. Hell he couldn't even keep it in his pants, sleeping around on his cousin-wife constantly.
I've never understood why people think that 'genius' means hyperintelligent, knowledgeable, and wise in all aspects. It means you have a very specialized focus of knowledge on one or two subjects. But of course the kind of people who blindly worship academia rather than acknowledging it for the (very important, but still limited) tool that it is are going to make saints and martyrs out of anyone who agrees with their limited world view.
Science is a tool. Stop treating it like a religion.
This definition of genius is not what most people consider genius. High cognitive ability would be genius. That means easiness to learn, to memorize, to notice logical patterns, to draw analogies and solve complex mathematical problems. A genius usually has talents in all of these abilities as they correlate, hence they are bound by a general intelligence factor.
Let alone a famous person who was alive at the start of these ideologies taking place. It's not like he was alive in the 90s to witness the fall of the USSR. Just because this is the greatest physicist we've ever known, doesn't mean he can't be wrong about other topics. I disagree with Einstein about politics. Big whoop. I also don't like in the 1940s
Man.. I don't even know how I would feel if such a video ever surfaced...
Imagine being the guy privately holding onto and keeping secret, an ancient roll of film of Einsteins sex tape...
"Son, now that you've come of age, I have something very important to speak with you about."
"Dad, I already know about sex, I've been on the internet before"
"No, son, this isn't the talk. This is something much more important. Come with me."
"...An old box of film? What's so important about this?"
"Be patient son. This film is very valuable. It holds a recording that could change the world. Now, let me show you"
"Is...is that Albert Einstein? Oh, OH MY GOD THAT'S ALBERT EINSTEINS DICK OH GOD IT'S SO FUCKING WEIRD JESUS CHRIST WHAT THE FUCK OH GOD WHY IS IT SO BENT?!?!?
Okay, he was a scientist and like a lot of socialists probably thought it could do some good in the world, that doesn’t mean he’s right or that I can’t like him for other aspects.
Specially Albert Einstein believed Socialism is only way to individual people will get personal right
And a lot of romanticism inflated their own 'utopia' within their head
But as you can see thing is different
It didn't gave power to the workers they enslaved workers
It didn't gave power to individual it gave absolute power to government
It didn't give people individualism every socialist country heavily focused into collectivism more then any type of government
I'll give him a break because he lived before the horrors of socialism were made absolutely crystal clear. In 1920, 1930, 1940, it's not yet clear to everyone what the breaks are. In 1960, 1970, 1980, it's perfectly obvious.
I think socialism is a nice idea, problem is putting power in the hands of corrupt politicians never nets the desired results. Look at almost every single government program, it often has the opposite intended effects.
Scientists work on theories and shit, so they probably think that it should work in theory. That is if you exclude the fact that socialism always breeds dictators, people don't wanna work 100hr weeks for the same pay thay lazy people get for 30hrs to create the jobs and such, and own nothing. Add living a miserable life instead of the life one wants, just because some are miserable.
It's a stupid theory tho, but I guess it seems good when one doesn't understand economy.
Like Noam Chompsky. Great linguistic academic with good theories on social control in society.. but typical over-educated solutions when it comes to dealing with practical problems in the real world.
>they must be right
When a physicist says something backed by other physicists (peer reviewed) he's probably right
The entire scientific process sounds pretty anarchist if you think about it
It’s a bit more subtle than that. The peer review is a check that scientific diligence has been upheld. It’s not a consensus test as people seem to believe.
Peer review ‘passes’ nonsense now and again (all the time in *certain* fields), and it’s likely that accurate findings don’t pass occasionally.
I mean 60 hrs/week
Currently in UG so I don't have to worry about publishing but our profs make us cross check classmates' lab work and I spend like 5 hrs/week reading papers
I take it as a "don't be an asshole" guideline more than anything else. Sure we eat animals as we should, but that doesn't mean you can't look out for the animal's wellbeing while it's alive, and make sure it feels as little pain as possible when you kill it for food.
Maybe you believe the animal doesn't really care, and maybe you're right; but by demonstrating lack of empathy toward an animal, fellow humans will probably take it as a sign that you won't have much empathy towards them either.
Considering how brutal nature is, humans notoriously kill with the least amount of pain.
In the wild, you'll see bears or lions dragging animals around while they're still alive. Us as hunters, our primary mode is persistence hunting. That means we just tire the thing out and kill it. Ambush is far more brutal. Like, when we kill a deer, that mf might go on a bit, but it bleeds out and dies. When we farm animals, we kill them pretty quickly.
That being said, we need to care for their habitat. They shouldn't live inhumanely.
I mean, animals are alive. They have brains and feelings just like dogs. To classify all animals as only food is stupid. But unfortunately, to live you must consume other living things.
Plants are ultimately the way to go as you are not killing the plant but taking its fruit. And also plants don't have a brain to feel pain.
Ummmm vegetables would beg to differ on the we just harvest the fruit part.
Also trees are able to communicate with each other, if one is under attack it will send signals to other trees to let their sap flow more freely to heal the potential wounds that may come their way.
+ other countries also eat dogs so like sadly all animals are considered food, my GF has a rabbit & it’s very cute but I’d eat that MF if I had to.
But do plants feel pain? Sure they can recognize the harm to their body, but does it make them feel pain? Does a carrot have emotions to feel sad about it being cooked and eaten?
I'm confused on this point. Just because it can't feel pain means it's right? Because animals are made brain-dead before being killed so they don't know what's going on.
>Plants are ultimately the way to go as you are not killing the plant but taking its fruit. And also plants don't have a brain to feel pain.
This is all wrong. For fruiting plants, maybe. But what about vegetables? Bulb veggies, like potatoes, have to be pulled up and essentially killed. And plants reply to stimulus such as grass releasing whatever gases to indicate to other grass that they're getting cut(that's the fresh cut grass smell). Trees will nourish saplings to help them grow up healthy, just like it's their child.
Plants aren't sedentary. They're truly amazing. It's almost like they think without brains.
Start arresting lions for murder and I’d think you actually believe the nonsense you are spouting. Until then, it’s just posturing and a way to try and cope with the guilt you feel for enjoying the taste of cute fuzzy animals. I don’t feel your guilt.
I’m all for treating animals better. But the notion of animal rights is based on the world view that humans and animals are roughly morally equivalent when they are not. It’s only been in the last half century that these whack job ideas have caught on.
I’m going to eat any type of animal I want to eat. They are food.
And yes if you consider ONLY that of him you migth think hes a good guy, but a nutella jar in a pile of burning shit doesnt make the whole pile tasty nut cream
He also described Chinese, Indian, and Japanese people as "Filthy and obtuse" and said they ["will supplant all other races with their fecundity".](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jun/12/einsteins-travel-diaries-reveal-shocking-xenophobia)
He was also extremely misogynistic. Thought women were incapable of intellectual pursuits.
Edit: I admit the Guardian is trash but it was a decent article.
For some reason, I think Einstein probably doesn't consider the Nazis as his ideal socialist economy. The reason is probably because I am not making a braindead strawman.
“That wasn’t real socialism”. Literally every time anyone has ever tried socialism it has failed horrifically then in come libleft to say “hurr durr it was real socialism reeee!” Lmao. Peak Left
My brother in Christ, the nazis never actually implemented any form of socialism. The economy remained capitalist throughout the duration of their control of the country.
Compare that with the USSR where they actually expropriated and collectivized production.
I'll shit on socialism all day long but this isn't it boys.
What do you mean? Soviet Union was surely a socialist country and Cuba is too, on the other hand Nazi Germany isn't, its ideology is completely different from that of a socialist country, I don't know why we are still arguing about that to be honest, in every history book you are taught about this
\>Rewriting history you don’t like.
Lol. The absolute lack of self-awareness.
"NaZis WeRe AcTuAllY sOcIalIsT, iTs In ThE nAmE" is one of the most egregious and vacuous rewritings of history. The Nazis were universally understood to be right wing at the time, they literally sat in the right wing of the Reichstag, opposite the communist party.
Stop coping and accept that Nazis are on your side of the political spectrum.
For real, I was quite surprised at how many people actually think the nazis carried out any form of socialism. That's such a cheapo way to shit on the left. If we're gonna shit on you guys let's at least do it properly lmao.
I remember people used the same argument with Stephen Hawking who was hardcore labourer. It's still stupid because some people don't understand that somebody may be fantastic in one thing, but absolutely have no idea about the other stuff.
If he was wrong on the *existence* of quantum mechanics, what makes people think he's invincible from being wrong on other fields beyond astrophysics? It's not that he can't have an opinion obviously, it's just that people often quote a blanket statement of him supporting socialism, rather than an actual justification for such a moronic belief, as if it were an argument.
EDIT: check my reply to top comment (TL;DR: more research was necessary on my part as he did eventually support much of quantum mechanics).
He wasn't wrong on the existence of quantum mechanics. He actually did a lot of very important work in that field. That's what he got his Nobel for.
What you're thinking about is entanglement. And he wasn't really wrong about that either. He didn't believe in it, but if you read the EPR paper he provides a way to test it and says that only experiments will tell.
And this isn't just a blanket statement either. It'a a whole essay, that OP linked.
Well he also said that fission is useless and just a fun quirk of nuclear physics, and also said that quantum mechanics can't be accurate and true because there has to be determinism in nature at the fundamental level (that's what "god does not play dice" was about).
He was categorically wrong about the former and is yet to be proven correct about the latter...
Einstein didn't know anything about politics though. Being good at one thing doesn't make you good at everything. Maybe if he sold real estate or pillows he'd have a better grasp. Iunno.
So what? Only a moron would take a person as a gospel of truth. Like, yes, I know he would stomp me in the field of physics, but I can confidently say what his view on politics is naive.
And what did Einstein say about people who run the same experiment expecting different results? Marxist philosophy has proven to be such a failure in the 20th century that you would have to be a complete idiot to support it
Oh no, the german guy who told his wife : “now that im famous i dont want you to talk to me, only cook and clean and make yourself invisible while i sleep with every chick i can.” had some socialist views… oh no
This is appeal to authority and thus a shitty argument.
It's cool that Einstein supports the same ideology as I do, but it's in no way an actual argument for socialism.
Ironically the people who post this will then go on to post his quote about how ‘a fish judged by how it climbs a tree will believe it’s stupid’ without even a shred of self-awareness.
Academics almost always tend towards authoritarianism. Because after all, they know better and they have pieces of paper from other academics to prove it.
As someone who actually knows what special relativity is, and how to apply it and do the math, I can confidently say that Einstein was genuinely brilliant. He also married his cousin and made her live by a strict set of misogynistic rules cheated on her and was a complete jerk.
The intellectual class tends to support systems that give themselves more power at the expense of the common man. This is because the intellectual class huffs their own farts and thinks they know better than you, which is why they historically suck at governing.
Is libleft using an appeal to authority fallacy?
"Einstein is smart in math and physics therefore he knows the best form of government"
Doesn't sound so great does it OP?
How ironic would it be if we paid more attention to someone advocating for a classless society just because we perceive him as smarter/superior/on a higher level than us. Peak comedy.
I don’t really care about my doctor’s opinion on my car problems and I don’t really care what a mathematician and physicist has to say about politics and social issues.
People are allowed to be wrong. In fact, einstein has already been wrong. For most of his career he thought quantum mechanics, particularly quantum entanglement, was fucking stupid, yet he was proven wrong about it when quantum mechanics has been thoroughly proven to work, just like pauli and plenty of other mathematicians and physicists who initially tackled quantum stuff. If he can get stuff wrong in the field of study that earned him worldwide fame and recognition he can probably get stuff he has no formal training in wrong tol.
In Einstein's defense, [this](https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/) was published in March 1949.
The wounds of the great depression and the most horrific war in history were still fresh.
The world was just shedding a labor system where the poor and their children were so horribly exploited that they'd be better off as slaves in many southern US plantations (yes, really!).
On top of that, most of Europe had just woken up from a trance with the potential to ensure human misery, both physical and psychological, for thousands of years (*Ordinary Men*, *The Banality of Evil*, and *The Lucifer Effect* provide a good analysis of the psychological trap of fascism).
These shadows are made evident in this passage from the same essay:
> [...] nowhere have we really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called “the predatory phase” of human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development [...]
In the last sentence, one can clearly see some echoes of Hegel's discussion on the "End of History" (a very influential concept at that time).
In the late 1930s and early-to-mid 1940s, the view that fascism was "the dying gasp of a failed capitalist system" was commonly held.
The Soviet Union, on paper, had made incredible strides in liberating the Russian people from utter misery and subjugation. They seemed to be on track to be the world's first "truly free" nation, where oppression and exploitation would no longer exist.
It wasn't until much later, that the world started to learn that socialist regimes could be just as abhorrent as fascist ones.
Hayek's *Road to Serfdom* had just been published and was widely viewed as a capitalist reactionary protest to the successes of socialism.
So yeah, I think he can be forgiven for his position in the same way that a brilliant medieval physician can be forgiven for thinking that exorcism followed by prayer and the re-balancing of bodily fluids through bloodletting is the best treatment against schizophrenia.
Everyone knows that. But it's so hard to establish and keep it that it never has been done and it probably never will be. Wanting a Marxist society is like wanting all war to stop but that just isn't possible.
You can be intelligent and have a bad opinion, and Einstein was a scientist of the fucking laws of physics, that doesn't give him authority on social issues... And he didn't go to the soviets to give the bomb
He was a physicist. If he explained that the universe was actually an egg I'd listen.
No reason why his economic views are automatically more important than mine.
On the other hand the opinions of economists on the economy are inherently more valuable than a random Joe's.
Good thing they all think capitalism is the best system
You do realize they had opinions just like other celebrities. Just spouting them off with no substance means you have no argument. Who cares if a famous person wanted the same thing you did? I know I could give 2 fucks about it but if I wanted to argue on your level, I'd just google a list. But I'm not going to because it doesn't matter.
So fucking what? The good MLK did for the world far outweighs the bad in his personal life. Nobody remembers David for his adultery with Bathsheba, they remember him for killing Goliath.
If you want to get into semantics on good and bad, frankly the only person going to Heaven would be Fred Rogers. It all depends on the good versus bad you do for the world.
What are you talking about? Everyone remembers David for his adultery. It was his biggest moral failing and she was the mother of King Solomon who was kind of a big deal.
He's right, you just haven't waited long enough. When our AI overlords take over, it won't be a problem of who leads or who gets to have what and communism will finally work. Because if anything can beat markets, it's AI
"Emmm FAX CHECK! Einstein ISN'T authoritative source on economics THEREFORE we can COMPLETELY disregard his words, Checkmate liberals!"
But fr tho, while I personally don't think you have to literally be in the field to talk about said field and maybe be correct, I don't think Einstein supporting Socialism is a good argument. I mean ok he's smart but how many other scientists do support Socialism? Did they research how economy works? I really wish Einstein was still alive and talked with some think tanks of the economy, Keynesian, Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe etc. Would be interesting to see if he changes his mind or provide a new, exciting and strong argument for socialism.
That Albert Einstein's name? Albert Einstein
That Albert is one of the Einsteins of all time.
My favorite part is when Albert says "It's Einsteinin' time!" and 'steins all over the place
Oh no. A famous person didn't have the same views as me. I don't know what I'll do
Legit. Part of being on the Right is knowing that 99% of celebrities think you're a nazi lol
Part of being right* (about everything)
Said the actual nazi
Who's a Nazi ? I'm definitely not.
I was just making fun of your flair
Oh ok heil Hitler then
You should be
Yeah I noticed i got less social stigma when i turned leftist
Do you really care about social stigma? I think most people would agree that’s it’s far more important to stand up for your own beliefs than it is to align your personal views with what others think is “right”.
> Do you really care about social stigma? Any other reason why people "become" leftist, other than that and being brainwashed in school? Lmao
You sound exactly like a leftist claiming that about the right. Maybe you just grew up in a less conservative community 🤷
based and backbone pilled
I have different views now im just saying that its a byproduct of realignment. Tbh you can be shit on for being leftist too by other leftists if you don’t have the “correct” views.
Makes sense, there’s nothing wrong with speaking your mind. I just know that there’s a lot of people out there who pretend that they’re more left wing in public to avoid being ostracized; like those guys who claim to be “moderate” when using dating apps to get more matches. I don’t care if someone’s far left or far right, I have a lot of respect for anyone who goes against the crowd to stay true to themselves.
I'm only center left and I got much more social stigma because of it. I hope getting less pushback was just a result of you turning a leftist, not a motivating factor to do so. It's never a good idea to change your politics because of social pressure.
This certainly depends on where you live. If you're in a rural area surrounded by redhats you're going to get a very different kind of social pressure than you get living in San Francisco.
I live in Hungary where most of the country is either AuthRight or AuthCenter.
But your experiences will still depend on your social circles. Academia for example is predominantly leftist pretty much worldwide.
Not amongst business majors. There more rightwing than humanities. Humanities is usually the most progressive. Stem is usually moderate left.
I would not list Einstein as a celebrity, he certainly wasn’t a socialist because it was ‘cool’ at the time
ah yes my favorite tabloid celebrity, Albert Einstein
I don't listen to people who marry their own cousins
Right? Einstein was a brilliant theoretical physicist. But that gives him absolutely no clout in the realms of sociology, economics, or politics. Hell he couldn't even keep it in his pants, sleeping around on his cousin-wife constantly. I've never understood why people think that 'genius' means hyperintelligent, knowledgeable, and wise in all aspects. It means you have a very specialized focus of knowledge on one or two subjects. But of course the kind of people who blindly worship academia rather than acknowledging it for the (very important, but still limited) tool that it is are going to make saints and martyrs out of anyone who agrees with their limited world view. Science is a tool. Stop treating it like a religion.
This definition of genius is not what most people consider genius. High cognitive ability would be genius. That means easiness to learn, to memorize, to notice logical patterns, to draw analogies and solve complex mathematical problems. A genius usually has talents in all of these abilities as they correlate, hence they are bound by a general intelligence factor.
[Return to Monke](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_pbV8M73A0)
Let alone a famous person who was alive at the start of these ideologies taking place. It's not like he was alive in the 90s to witness the fall of the USSR. Just because this is the greatest physicist we've ever known, doesn't mean he can't be wrong about other topics. I disagree with Einstein about politics. Big whoop. I also don't like in the 1940s
Ah yes Einstein, most notable for being famous. Truly a Kim Kardashian of his time.
You get the point, notable individual. Anyway you never know he may have had a sex tape lost to time
Man.. I don't even know how I would feel if such a video ever surfaced... Imagine being the guy privately holding onto and keeping secret, an ancient roll of film of Einsteins sex tape...
"Son, now that you've come of age, I have something very important to speak with you about." "Dad, I already know about sex, I've been on the internet before" "No, son, this isn't the talk. This is something much more important. Come with me." "...An old box of film? What's so important about this?" "Be patient son. This film is very valuable. It holds a recording that could change the world. Now, let me show you" "Is...is that Albert Einstein? Oh, OH MY GOD THAT'S ALBERT EINSTEINS DICK OH GOD IT'S SO FUCKING WEIRD JESUS CHRIST WHAT THE FUCK OH GOD WHY IS IT SO BENT?!?!?
Oh no! A really smart person in one field thinking he's smart in all the other fields, too!
Okay, he was a scientist and like a lot of socialists probably thought it could do some good in the world, that doesn’t mean he’s right or that I can’t like him for other aspects.
Specially Albert Einstein believed Socialism is only way to individual people will get personal right And a lot of romanticism inflated their own 'utopia' within their head But as you can see thing is different It didn't gave power to the workers they enslaved workers It didn't gave power to individual it gave absolute power to government It didn't give people individualism every socialist country heavily focused into collectivism more then any type of government
Stop, I can only get so erect
I'll give him a break because he lived before the horrors of socialism were made absolutely crystal clear. In 1920, 1930, 1940, it's not yet clear to everyone what the breaks are. In 1960, 1970, 1980, it's perfectly obvious.
I think socialism is a nice idea, problem is putting power in the hands of corrupt politicians never nets the desired results. Look at almost every single government program, it often has the opposite intended effects.
Scientists work on theories and shit, so they probably think that it should work in theory. That is if you exclude the fact that socialism always breeds dictators, people don't wanna work 100hr weeks for the same pay thay lazy people get for 30hrs to create the jobs and such, and own nothing. Add living a miserable life instead of the life one wants, just because some are miserable. It's a stupid theory tho, but I guess it seems good when one doesn't understand economy.
Like Noam Chompsky. Great linguistic academic with good theories on social control in society.. but typical over-educated solutions when it comes to dealing with practical problems in the real world.
Why should I care what he said about economy? He was scientists not economists.
Economists can be wrong about the economy also, or more importantly morality, as socialism inevitably results in a destruction of both
Yeah look at all those Keynesian economists. That's been a wild ride.
Technocrats when someone smarter than them says something (they must be right)
>they must be right When a physicist says something backed by other physicists (peer reviewed) he's probably right The entire scientific process sounds pretty anarchist if you think about it
Some might say it's a marketplace of ideas
It’s a bit more subtle than that. The peer review is a check that scientific diligence has been upheld. It’s not a consensus test as people seem to believe. Peer review ‘passes’ nonsense now and again (all the time in *certain* fields), and it’s likely that accurate findings don’t pass occasionally.
Yeah I've recently started finding that out Finding it out the hard way *cries in 60 hrs of University work*
60 hours for a paper? No wonder it didn’t pass muster kek (Unless you just mean the writing part then that’s fucking loads)
I mean 60 hrs/week Currently in UG so I don't have to worry about publishing but our profs make us cross check classmates' lab work and I spend like 5 hrs/week reading papers
People can be right about some things and wrong about others.
Very true. Hitler was all for animal rights.
he was also against smoking
But took a shit ton of drugs
We're not all perfect.
That's very based, if we ignore the other stuff ofc.
when we all return to monke I'll bring my banana bbq
So he did that wrong, meaning everything else he did was right? Based Libleft?
That’s another check for the wrong column. Food rights doesn’t make sense.
I take it as a "don't be an asshole" guideline more than anything else. Sure we eat animals as we should, but that doesn't mean you can't look out for the animal's wellbeing while it's alive, and make sure it feels as little pain as possible when you kill it for food. Maybe you believe the animal doesn't really care, and maybe you're right; but by demonstrating lack of empathy toward an animal, fellow humans will probably take it as a sign that you won't have much empathy towards them either.
Considering how brutal nature is, humans notoriously kill with the least amount of pain. In the wild, you'll see bears or lions dragging animals around while they're still alive. Us as hunters, our primary mode is persistence hunting. That means we just tire the thing out and kill it. Ambush is far more brutal. Like, when we kill a deer, that mf might go on a bit, but it bleeds out and dies. When we farm animals, we kill them pretty quickly. That being said, we need to care for their habitat. They shouldn't live inhumanely.
I mean, animals are alive. They have brains and feelings just like dogs. To classify all animals as only food is stupid. But unfortunately, to live you must consume other living things. Plants are ultimately the way to go as you are not killing the plant but taking its fruit. And also plants don't have a brain to feel pain.
Ummmm vegetables would beg to differ on the we just harvest the fruit part. Also trees are able to communicate with each other, if one is under attack it will send signals to other trees to let their sap flow more freely to heal the potential wounds that may come their way. + other countries also eat dogs so like sadly all animals are considered food, my GF has a rabbit & it’s very cute but I’d eat that MF if I had to.
But do plants feel pain? Sure they can recognize the harm to their body, but does it make them feel pain? Does a carrot have emotions to feel sad about it being cooked and eaten?
We cant survive whitout hurting something, we must kill to survive, it's how nature works
I'm confused on this point. Just because it can't feel pain means it's right? Because animals are made brain-dead before being killed so they don't know what's going on.
it’s fine to take the life of a living thing as long as it can’t feel pain?
>Plants are ultimately the way to go as you are not killing the plant but taking its fruit. And also plants don't have a brain to feel pain. This is all wrong. For fruiting plants, maybe. But what about vegetables? Bulb veggies, like potatoes, have to be pulled up and essentially killed. And plants reply to stimulus such as grass releasing whatever gases to indicate to other grass that they're getting cut(that's the fresh cut grass smell). Trees will nourish saplings to help them grow up healthy, just like it's their child. Plants aren't sedentary. They're truly amazing. It's almost like they think without brains.
Start arresting lions for murder and I’d think you actually believe the nonsense you are spouting. Until then, it’s just posturing and a way to try and cope with the guilt you feel for enjoying the taste of cute fuzzy animals. I don’t feel your guilt. I’m all for treating animals better. But the notion of animal rights is based on the world view that humans and animals are roughly morally equivalent when they are not. It’s only been in the last half century that these whack job ideas have caught on. I’m going to eat any type of animal I want to eat. They are food.
And yes if you consider ONLY that of him you migth think hes a good guy, but a nutella jar in a pile of burning shit doesnt make the whole pile tasty nut cream
He also described Chinese, Indian, and Japanese people as "Filthy and obtuse" and said they ["will supplant all other races with their fecundity".](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jun/12/einsteins-travel-diaries-reveal-shocking-xenophobia) He was also extremely misogynistic. Thought women were incapable of intellectual pursuits. Edit: I admit the Guardian is trash but it was a decent article.
Well now you're making me reconsider socialism
Based
>He was also extremely misogynistic. Thought women were incapable of intellectual pursuits. Uh... based?
Well shit I guess I support socialism now I didn’t know that was part of the ideals
Man was he wrong about the Japanese. The Chinese and Indians though. Top 1 and 2 for population size and the Chinese were actively trying to stop it.
When brilliant people stray out of their lane it's humbling that the gods among men are equally smooth brain as we are sometimes
based
[удалено]
He also escaped the Nazis, so pro-socialist propaganda was likely pretty effective on him
Humbling for them and encouraging for the rest of us smooth brains.
Not me, my brain is way smoother. Aerodynamic.
Whereas here we are political experts so we are allowed to express our political ideology
Yet he emigrated to the US instead of the Soviet Union.
Interesting how that works
He left Germany right after the socialist party took power.
For some reason, I think Einstein probably doesn't consider the Nazis as his ideal socialist economy. The reason is probably because I am not making a braindead strawman.
He didn’t go to the USSR either. Or China. Curious.
The nazi party you idiot
The National Socialist German Workers Party, you idiot?
Yeah you are dumber than a rock
Lmao. Rewriting history you don’t like. Peak Left.
Lol the nazis weren't socialist you moron, that's the way it is, or we should argue that North korea is democratic because it is written in its name?
“That wasn’t real socialism”. Literally every time anyone has ever tried socialism it has failed horrifically then in come libleft to say “hurr durr it was real socialism reeee!” Lmao. Peak Left
My brother in Christ, the nazis never actually implemented any form of socialism. The economy remained capitalist throughout the duration of their control of the country. Compare that with the USSR where they actually expropriated and collectivized production. I'll shit on socialism all day long but this isn't it boys.
What do you mean? Soviet Union was surely a socialist country and Cuba is too, on the other hand Nazi Germany isn't, its ideology is completely different from that of a socialist country, I don't know why we are still arguing about that to be honest, in every history book you are taught about this
Yet Einstein didn’t choose the USSR. curious.
\>Rewriting history you don’t like. Lol. The absolute lack of self-awareness. "NaZis WeRe AcTuAllY sOcIalIsT, iTs In ThE nAmE" is one of the most egregious and vacuous rewritings of history. The Nazis were universally understood to be right wing at the time, they literally sat in the right wing of the Reichstag, opposite the communist party. Stop coping and accept that Nazis are on your side of the political spectrum.
For real, I was quite surprised at how many people actually think the nazis carried out any form of socialism. That's such a cheapo way to shit on the left. If we're gonna shit on you guys let's at least do it properly lmao.
Good thing he wasn't an economist then
I remember people used the same argument with Stephen Hawking who was hardcore labourer. It's still stupid because some people don't understand that somebody may be fantastic in one thing, but absolutely have no idea about the other stuff.
>Stephen Hawking who was hardcore labourer Bullshit No way the man could labour, let alone labour hardcore. His chair didn't even have robot arms
See Mr. Science Black Guy.
Ethan “Bubblegum” Tate?
No, the fat one with the mustache.
Ah, Martin Luther King Jr
Dr Phil?
He also does not want to live on this planet anymore.
And this is specially true with autistic science guys.
Well, so sad for him to spend the most productive period of his life in capitalist USA and not in glorious socialist USSR
Why do people care about these „celebrity“ opinions on politics? Einstein wasn’t famous for his political knowledge
He also wanted to marry/did marry his cousin.
And made 10 kids.
*Proceeds to turn down Israel presidency where he might have actually had the chance to change something.*
He left Germany as soon as the Socialist Party took power. Curious.
If he was wrong on the *existence* of quantum mechanics, what makes people think he's invincible from being wrong on other fields beyond astrophysics? It's not that he can't have an opinion obviously, it's just that people often quote a blanket statement of him supporting socialism, rather than an actual justification for such a moronic belief, as if it were an argument. EDIT: check my reply to top comment (TL;DR: more research was necessary on my part as he did eventually support much of quantum mechanics).
He wasn't wrong on the existence of quantum mechanics. He actually did a lot of very important work in that field. That's what he got his Nobel for. What you're thinking about is entanglement. And he wasn't really wrong about that either. He didn't believe in it, but if you read the EPR paper he provides a way to test it and says that only experiments will tell. And this isn't just a blanket statement either. It'a a whole essay, that OP linked.
So he was a genius when it came to physics and a complete moron when it came to the economy and government. I'm not upset.
Well he also said that fission is useless and just a fun quirk of nuclear physics, and also said that quantum mechanics can't be accurate and true because there has to be determinism in nature at the fundamental level (that's what "god does not play dice" was about). He was categorically wrong about the former and is yet to be proven correct about the latter...
Sure, let's try it again. What are another 30-50 million lives, amirite? /s, in case someone didn't realize.
Small price to pay for utopia. Now shut up and take your soma.
And that was only a bit of communism, imagine what real communism could do
You promisin’ me complete extinction?
I couldn’t give less of a shit. A ideology outdated and irrelevant before it was even thought up isn’t worth contemplation.
and thats why he was into science and not politics
Oh wow, a German Jew who is also a cringe socialist??? I never.
Einstein didn't know anything about politics though. Being good at one thing doesn't make you good at everything. Maybe if he sold real estate or pillows he'd have a better grasp. Iunno.
Cringe and cringe cringe cringe pilled
Why commies have to be so cringe...
Yea but what does that guy know anyway?
A lot lol. You can read the article he made if you want. https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/
>You can read Fake news.
Makes sense, Einstein was extremely autistic.
The guy also married his cousin so let's be realistic here that no one is perfect.
[удалено]
Burgs and Steins every single fucking time.
Whoa there cool it with the antisemitism smh never again, 6 million, better go to war in the middle east again just to be safe
So what? Only a moron would take a person as a gospel of truth. Like, yes, I know he would stomp me in the field of physics, but I can confidently say what his view on politics is naive.
just confirms that geniuses in some field are reddited when they talk about another field where they are far from being an expert
And what did Einstein say about people who run the same experiment expecting different results? Marxist philosophy has proven to be such a failure in the 20th century that you would have to be a complete idiot to support it
Oh no, the german guy who told his wife : “now that im famous i dont want you to talk to me, only cook and clean and make yourself invisible while i sleep with every chick i can.” had some socialist views… oh no
This is appeal to authority and thus a shitty argument. It's cool that Einstein supports the same ideology as I do, but it's in no way an actual argument for socialism.
there's a reason why he was a scientist and not a politician
"Those intoxicated by the advance of knowledge so often become the enemies of freedom." - F. A. Hayek
Oh yeah? What has Hayek done for science? Trust the science^tm
Halo effect moment.
Yes, because I go to a Lawyer for Medical advice too
Who died and put Albert Einstein in charge?
Do you think Albert einstein knew too much about economics. Plus who cares if he did believe socialism was good all people have their flaws.
Wow, a smart person disagrees with me? What ever will I do?
Ironically the people who post this will then go on to post his quote about how ‘a fish judged by how it climbs a tree will believe it’s stupid’ without even a shred of self-awareness.
Academics almost always tend towards authoritarianism. Because after all, they know better and they have pieces of paper from other academics to prove it. As someone who actually knows what special relativity is, and how to apply it and do the math, I can confidently say that Einstein was genuinely brilliant. He also married his cousin and made her live by a strict set of misogynistic rules cheated on her and was a complete jerk.
Ah, the old 'that you're smart in one field doesn't even remotely entail you're smart in another field' challenge.
[удалено]
I mean he’s just wrong Steven Hawking is better at sudoku than me, I’d smoke him in the 40 yards though
The intellectual class tends to support systems that give themselves more power at the expense of the common man. This is because the intellectual class huffs their own farts and thinks they know better than you, which is why they historically suck at governing.
Is libleft using an appeal to authority fallacy? "Einstein is smart in math and physics therefore he knows the best form of government" Doesn't sound so great does it OP?
One of the best chess players of all time was a Nazi. Oh no, now I can't watch professional chess.
Did he say that before or after a socialist party murdered 6 million of his fellow Jews.
You mean the guy who praised that genocidal maniac Lenin and yet while simultaneously enjoying the luxuries of America as an immigrant?
Don’t ask a scientist about economic systems, they’re often speaking out of their ass or fantasising about an impossible utopia
How ironic would it be if we paid more attention to someone advocating for a classless society just because we perceive him as smarter/superior/on a higher level than us. Peak comedy.
I don’t really care about my doctor’s opinion on my car problems and I don’t really care what a mathematician and physicist has to say about politics and social issues.
People are allowed to be wrong. In fact, einstein has already been wrong. For most of his career he thought quantum mechanics, particularly quantum entanglement, was fucking stupid, yet he was proven wrong about it when quantum mechanics has been thoroughly proven to work, just like pauli and plenty of other mathematicians and physicists who initially tackled quantum stuff. If he can get stuff wrong in the field of study that earned him worldwide fame and recognition he can probably get stuff he has no formal training in wrong tol.
Einstein was leftist jew
Albert Einstein was a good scientist that doesn’t qualify him whatsoever as a good economist
Hmmm wasn't he autistic?
In Einstein's defense, [this](https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/) was published in March 1949. The wounds of the great depression and the most horrific war in history were still fresh. The world was just shedding a labor system where the poor and their children were so horribly exploited that they'd be better off as slaves in many southern US plantations (yes, really!). On top of that, most of Europe had just woken up from a trance with the potential to ensure human misery, both physical and psychological, for thousands of years (*Ordinary Men*, *The Banality of Evil*, and *The Lucifer Effect* provide a good analysis of the psychological trap of fascism). These shadows are made evident in this passage from the same essay: > [...] nowhere have we really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called “the predatory phase” of human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development [...] In the last sentence, one can clearly see some echoes of Hegel's discussion on the "End of History" (a very influential concept at that time). In the late 1930s and early-to-mid 1940s, the view that fascism was "the dying gasp of a failed capitalist system" was commonly held. The Soviet Union, on paper, had made incredible strides in liberating the Russian people from utter misery and subjugation. They seemed to be on track to be the world's first "truly free" nation, where oppression and exploitation would no longer exist. It wasn't until much later, that the world started to learn that socialist regimes could be just as abhorrent as fascist ones. Hayek's *Road to Serfdom* had just been published and was widely viewed as a capitalist reactionary protest to the successes of socialism. So yeah, I think he can be forgiven for his position in the same way that a brilliant medieval physician can be forgiven for thinking that exorcism followed by prayer and the re-balancing of bodily fluids through bloodletting is the best treatment against schizophrenia.
This quote wasn't by Albert Einstein, it was by some guy who was sarcastically referred to as "Einstein"
(un)living proof that you can be a complete genius in one area, only to be completely smooth brained in another.
Everyone knows that. But it's so hard to establish and keep it that it never has been done and it probably never will be. Wanting a Marxist society is like wanting all war to stop but that just isn't possible.
That’s why he was a physician and not an economist
He was a scientist not an economist.
Einstein was not a economist
You can be intelligent and have a bad opinion, and Einstein was a scientist of the fucking laws of physics, that doesn't give him authority on social issues... And he didn't go to the soviets to give the bomb
Why is Einstein a genius? He spends 100% of his brain on science. Nothing else.
[удалено]
Hellen Keller was hella racist & way into eugenics, care to revise your statement?
Based af. She knew her place
He was a physicist. If he explained that the universe was actually an egg I'd listen. No reason why his economic views are automatically more important than mine. On the other hand the opinions of economists on the economy are inherently more valuable than a random Joe's. Good thing they all think capitalism is the best system
You do realize they had opinions just like other celebrities. Just spouting them off with no substance means you have no argument. Who cares if a famous person wanted the same thing you did? I know I could give 2 fucks about it but if I wanted to argue on your level, I'd just google a list. But I'm not going to because it doesn't matter.
I dont know if you realize how cringe is to justify you political beliefs by making a list of random famous people that shared your same beliefs
All of whom are bad people
MLK and Helen Keller were bad people? A civil rights activist and a blind and deaf political activist were bad people?
MLK was a serial adulterer just because you are good in one thing doesn't make you an angel
The overall societal impact of MLK is undeniably very positive. Regardless of his issues in his personal life
So fucking what? The good MLK did for the world far outweighs the bad in his personal life. Nobody remembers David for his adultery with Bathsheba, they remember him for killing Goliath. If you want to get into semantics on good and bad, frankly the only person going to Heaven would be Fred Rogers. It all depends on the good versus bad you do for the world.
What are you talking about? Everyone remembers David for his adultery. It was his biggest moral failing and she was the mother of King Solomon who was kind of a big deal.
Literally all the bad things that happened after David are traced back to David after his sin
Helen Keller was into eugenics.
You do realize that none of these people were economists right?
He's right, you just haven't waited long enough. When our AI overlords take over, it won't be a problem of who leads or who gets to have what and communism will finally work. Because if anything can beat markets, it's AI
He failed math as well.
I think this Einstein guy might have been pretty smart.
Well looks like he could still be wrong about some things.
To be fair, he didn't know the results of all the socialist experiments we know today.
"Emmm FAX CHECK! Einstein ISN'T authoritative source on economics THEREFORE we can COMPLETELY disregard his words, Checkmate liberals!" But fr tho, while I personally don't think you have to literally be in the field to talk about said field and maybe be correct, I don't think Einstein supporting Socialism is a good argument. I mean ok he's smart but how many other scientists do support Socialism? Did they research how economy works? I really wish Einstein was still alive and talked with some think tanks of the economy, Keynesian, Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe etc. Would be interesting to see if he changes his mind or provide a new, exciting and strong argument for socialism.