Is the phrase "dumb nigger" a tautology?
- Iniciador del tema Pee Cola
- Fecha de inicio
-
🚨 DDoS attack. Tor is stable: https://kiwifarmsaaf4t2h7gc3dfc5ojhmqruw2nit3uejrpiagrxeuxiyxcyd.onion/.
🔎 Please read my article, How to Dox Anyone: A Liz Fong-Jones Story. (Xitter), (Substack). -
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
Solución
Grub
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 2 de Jul, 2021
It seems like it is but I feel like that insults the mute.
- Registrado
- 4 de Ene, 2021
No it’s an adjective. Not all niggers are dumb. Some are retarded, some stupid some imbeciles ..
- Registrado
- 25 de Dic, 2022
I'd argue it isn't. There can, and have been smart niggers.
A nigger's intelligence is not what makes them a nigger. It's their behavior and appearance.
A nigger's intelligence is not what makes them a nigger. It's their behavior and appearance.
- Registrado
- 14 de Sep, 2021
I believe you meant "redundancy". a tautology is a statement that is always true - sometimes through restatement - such as, "A nigger is either dumb, or he is not a nigger."
Bazinga.
*adjusts fedora*
Bazinga.
*adjusts fedora*
Power Appreciator
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 26 de Jun, 2023
Many gene mutations correlated with higher IQ have been identified, and while in cases of Whites and North East Asians often 50-70%+ of the population has these mutations, in case of niggers it's never higher than 10-15%. Similarly in case of detrimental gene mutations correlated with lower IQ, you will see them in single digit percentage in Whites, but over a half of niggers will have them. So while intelligent niggers are possible, they are rare spawns (and since niggers in the US are subjected to more dysgenic factors than original African niggers, these percentages look even worse for them)
Solución
- Registrado
- 29 de Ene, 2021
To add to this from a formal logic standpoint:
You can interpret "dumb nigger" as a proposition x. Isolated as a propositional formula, x is not tautological, as you can assign false to x resulting in the formula being unsatisfied. You could also argue there is a conjunction between dumb and nigger, resulting in x ∧ y, which is still not tautological as you could just assign both false.
In case of interpreting it as a FOL expression, you could try to argue that dumb is meant to be a predicate applied to the constant nigger, so dumb(nigger), instead. This however doesn't change that you can simply find an unsatisfying interpretation, e.g. one where dumb is the empty set and nigger some arbitrary constant, making the formula unsatisfied. You could also argue both dumb and nigger are predicates acting on an unbound variable, in which case you also can easily find an interpretation resulting in the formula being unsatisfied.
A tautology is a formula that is always satisfied, regardless of what you assign to variables (in case of propositional logic) or regardless of what interpretation you use (in case of FOL). For instance x ∨ ¬x is one, regardless of what x is or what you assign to x.
You can interpret "dumb nigger" as a proposition x. Isolated as a propositional formula, x is not tautological, as you can assign false to x resulting in the formula being unsatisfied. You could also argue there is a conjunction between dumb and nigger, resulting in x ∧ y, which is still not tautological as you could just assign both false.
In case of interpreting it as a FOL expression, you could try to argue that dumb is meant to be a predicate applied to the constant nigger, so dumb(nigger), instead. This however doesn't change that you can simply find an unsatisfying interpretation, e.g. one where dumb is the empty set and nigger some arbitrary constant, making the formula unsatisfied. You could also argue both dumb and nigger are predicates acting on an unbound variable, in which case you also can easily find an interpretation resulting in the formula being unsatisfied.
A tautology is a formula that is always satisfied, regardless of what you assign to variables (in case of propositional logic) or regardless of what interpretation you use (in case of FOL). For instance x ∨ ¬x is one, regardless of what x is or what you assign to x.