I think lying is magic. What do you think?

I think lying is magic.

What does /x/ think?

Black Rifle Cuck Company, Conservative Humor Shirt $21.68

Yakub: World's Greatest Dad Shirt $21.68

Black Rifle Cuck Company, Conservative Humor Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Lying is psychological warfare. It's more psionics than magics.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Can you explain the difference between psionics and magic?

      I feel like it’s just cope for people who hate the word “magic”

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Psionics uses ISP, Magic uses PPE

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >implying I know what you mean
          You are shit at psionics and/or magic

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Magic uses PPE
          Oh shit, the ministry of magic is going to give me an osha violation for not wearing my safety goggles while casting fireballs.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Psionics is psychic powers. Magic uses demonic/godly powers.

        >implying I know what you mean
        You are shit at psionics and/or magic

        That was just some random person who was memeing.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          But how is lying a psychic power? In any canon?

          In many canon, lying is a demonic/godly power.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It uses the power of the mind to impact another person's mind.
            >in many canon
            Animals use lying all of the time. Even single celled organisms know how to lie. Viruses are the living embodiment of lying to cells to get them to reproduce for them.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That's just all speech. Actually it's all verbs.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >all speech
            Do you think Viruses communicate verbally? It's all communication though. Like physically communicating that you are a flower to attract pray. Or physically communicating bright colors to imply that you are poisonous (when you really aren't).

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You are just being gay now.

            Deceit is dissimilar from lying. You can deceive people with truth,

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >deceit is dissimilar from lying
            That is way more gay semantics than the argument that I was making.
            Tell me how you deceive people with purely truth without talking.
            >you make them use conjecture by withholding information
            Sounds like lying with more steps. How is it dissimilar to lying?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > Tell me how you deceive people with purely truth without talking.
            Are you familiar at all with combat sports?
            It would be called a “feint”. It exists in pretty much all competitive sports, but particularly combat sports.

            All action is truth. A feint is action. A feint is intended to deceive, and occasionally does.

            Another example would be like a bluff in poker; a bet you have no business making. The bet is real, true; if you see through the deceit you can profit.

            Just a couple examples of nonverbal deceit. And all nonverbal deceit is true.
            You should have asked how verbal deceit is possible with truth. It’s harder to answer for me right now but I practiced it extensively when I was younger.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Is withholding information lying?
            Is someone else’s misunderstanding a lie?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Is being wrong a lie? If I say someone is west but they aren't and I really believe it is it a lie?
            What if I light a bunch of fires to make it seem like I have a bunch of people. Is that a "lie"? Deception is just the more pure form of lying.

            > Tell me how you deceive people with purely truth without talking.
            Are you familiar at all with combat sports?
            It would be called a “feint”. It exists in pretty much all competitive sports, but particularly combat sports.

            All action is truth. A feint is action. A feint is intended to deceive, and occasionally does.

            Another example would be like a bluff in poker; a bet you have no business making. The bet is real, true; if you see through the deceit you can profit.

            Just a couple examples of nonverbal deceit. And all nonverbal deceit is true.
            You should have asked how verbal deceit is possible with truth. It’s harder to answer for me right now but I practiced it extensively when I was younger.

            >feints aren't lying about intentions
            That's not providing a truth. It's the same as producing sounds waves that make a person think something is going to happen but in reality something else is going to happen.
            >bluffs aren't lying
            Again this sounds like semantics. You can't say "I didn't lie about having a good hand" when someone calls the bluff. The facade is the lie. Just like a trojan horse.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >is being wrong a lie?
            Seems like a silly question at first, but I guess it depends on if you refuse to accept you are wrong in light of overwhelming evidence.
            >if I say something I TRULY believe is true, is it a lie?
            I would say no, at the risk of my position.

            I don’t understand the fire thing.

            >not providing a truth
            It’s actually insane to consider this a lie. It is impossible to not lie under these conditions. No matter how fast you could communicate there is too much information to convey or be understood.
            >you cant say I didn’t lie about having a good hand
            But you didn’t lie at all. You placed a bet. The bet may carry implications, but a proper player isn’t concerned with the normative implications of the bet, because, obviously, you may be bluffing.

            But I’d like to pause and retrace a bit and have you comment on how not providing information is a lie. I think lies are extremely powerful, and you seem to be trying to make them universal and suffocating.

            To not make a distinction here makes discussion impossible, as we can’t possibly tell each other EVERYTHING that ever happened and thus both of us are the biggest liars possible (lying about almost everything that has ever happened or even been thought) and communication is pointless.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Seems like a silly question at first, but I guess it depends on if you refuse to accept you are wrong in light of overwhelming evidence.
            To the observer it's a lie. To the person who knows his own intent it's just a "mistake". So it really depends on whether you think "intention" has any importance in lying. If you don't think that's the case then you have an argument for why deception is "way different" from lying.

            This also explains the fire situation. My intention is to deceive you. It's the same as lying. If intention doesn't matter then the fire situation isn't a "lie" but how is this deception any different from lying? The intention was to mislead by providing a "false narrative."

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >to the observer it is a lie
            I disagree, however:
            This loops us back to “is being wrong a lie”, which I already said may only be the case if the subject continues to delude themself in light of overwhelming evidence.

            In such a case, they are no longer deluding themself. If a lie ever existed, it was in the subjects mind and has been “dispelled” upon their realization.

            I do not think that lie ever existed, as expanded later in my post, outside of the person lying to themself.
            The question here would seem to be
            >is making someone cast magic on themselves the same as casting magic?
            Again, I would say no. I’m open to arguments.

            >is intention important to lying?
            An excellent question, and the reason I distinguish between lying and deciet.
            I say deceit was obviously the intent, but it was accomplished without lies. I would refer back to “feints” from before. Action is always truth. Even if the action is a verbal lie, it just mean that it is true that they lied.

            I would need a good reason to remove my distinction between deceit and lies, and it would be most powerful if you could convince me how a feint in boxing or fencing is a lie.

            Please explain how the intent to deceive is THE SAME as lying. It might help to start with simply defining lying before expanding so we can discuss your definition.

            To me, a lie comes only in the form of words.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >In such a case, they are no longer deluding themself. If a lie ever existed, it was in the subjects mind and has been “dispelled” upon their realization.
            This is basically you though. Who told the lie?
            >If a lie ever existed
            >it was in the subjects mind
            Which is deception not a lie by your own words.
            This argument is pointless though. It's just semantics. If you really believe a lie can only come from words then you don't need any more argument than that. Animals can't speak so they can't lie in your mind. I don't agree and even if it was true it would still be deception in my mind.
            tl:dr My argument is all lies are deception and all deceptions are the same.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >who told the lie
            The subject. To themselves.
            In this specific example where, as stated, the deceit was accomplished by telling a selective truth.
            >which is deception.
            I called it deception from the start, my argument was that it was achieved without lying. The subject lied to themselves.
            >it’s just semantics
            That’s disappointing. If it’s just semantics then let’s just stop talking about it.
            >if you really believe a word can only come from words
            Sort of. But the lie the subject tells themselves may not necessarily take the form of words. I guess some people Don’t think in words and instead narratives.

            I don’t understand this myself, but if you are incapable of thinking in words and instead only think in narratives, it may be difficult to understand why “deceit without lies” seems exactly like a lie, and why it is so effective.

            Thanks for talking with me, by the way. It’s helped me think through this.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >may seem difficult
            Makes more sense*

            Lost track of myself there

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I called it deception from the start, my argument was that it was achieved without lying. The subject lied to themselves.

            You are just being gay now.

            Deceit is dissimilar from lying. You can deceive people with truth,

            >Deceit is dissimilar from lying. You can deceive people with truth,

            You're argument is all over the place. The subject is reporting actions which you claim can never be lies. They never tell themselves a lie as they only saw truthful actions and were wrong when reporting them to another person.

            Like I said originally:
            >deceit is dissimilar from lying
            That is way more gay semantics than the argument that I was making.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I think you have misunderstood me, or I’m misunderstanding your post here.

            I’d like you to try again after I clarify a few of my positions:
            >deceit is not a lie, but it’s purpose is for someone to lie to themselves
            This is the same as if you could talk someone into punching themself, you still have not punched them

            >you can deceive people with truth
            I’m really out of practice with this, but just to throw out an example:
            In dispositions where subjects are under question, they may answer “I don’t recall”
            This is often taken to mean “I don’t remember”, but an alternative (and linguistically more accurate) interpretation would be “I won’t say that again”

            This is common with cases involving a high-functioning (or coached) defendant; where the language serves a double meaning to protect them from perjury. Rather than saying “frick you I won’t answer you” they can say “I do not recall”. A true statement that may (hopefully) be misinterpreted (and in this case, can never be proven untrue).

            >it’s just semantics
            I’m begging you to make an argument that equates deceit using the truth to lying. Deceit CAUSES lies in the subject, but it doesn’t necessarily involve lies from the perpetrator.

            One can make exclusively true statements that causes another to lie to themselves.
            Currently, I am unable to concede that stating things that are exclusively true can be called “lying”

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >i wont say that again
            Should be
            >I do not say that again

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I feel like you're lying. but you're also on /x/. oh shit did YOU JUST DO A SPELL

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You can extrapolate further and call language magic, and even further, communication is magic. Lying is black magic.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I think it is a big stretch to call truthful speech magic. I get it, it’s just a stretch.

      So what do I do with this information?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >I think it is a big stretch to call truthful speech magic.
        You dont understand the power of internal-external connection, then.
        Brahmins in antiquity were so pure and honest that because they would not speak untruth, what they said of the future was guaranteed to happen.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's fake and gay magic so liars aren't able to access real magic
    >your words are used to create a fake narrative thus altering the reality of those who believe it

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    lying is magic
    language is a virus
    We already live in a tech dystopia, but the tech is storytelling

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This homie knows. How do I free myself from the tyranny of narrative?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >How do I free myself from the tyranny of narrative?
        Idunno. Shits fricked. Fly no flags I guess

        > but the tech is storytelling
        Please say more. I’ve discussed similar before and I would love to hear your thoughts before poisoning them with my own.

        I don't think I know much else besides the banal. You should go off.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Well, why do you think what you said had enough value to convey to others?

          Why did you think it was relevant to this discussion (it certainly is)?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Its one of those things I remember knowing but don't actually remember or know it. I don't like thinking about it and Ive never said it out loud or wrote jt down.

            I guess mass storytelling can create larger subjectivities that are also more defined. Though both size and definition can come at cost of each other. It really is a bit like a virus or parasite. Idk

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I don’t really want to derail my own thread, but briefly, the concept was a shitpost I wrote in response to simulation theory; which I find supremely gay.

            The post is meant to mock simulation theory rather than make a case for my own, but let me know how you feel about it:

            We live in a story, not a simulation.

            Simulations may never exist, but stories already do, and are much more versatile and easy to create. We have the technology to inscribe stories into not just rocks or books, but more advanced media as well. Stories can be about stories, like making a movie adaptation. Stories can be about the making of stories, as in documentaries about movies about stories in books. We even have meta stories, such as anthologies or series, where the story may be missing context within itself but in the greater story it becomes clear.

            There is even already proof of concept for nested stories, such as “A Never Ending Story”, so we know characters in stories can indeed create stories of their own in which the characters can become aware they are in a story. They can even interact with another layer above them in the story stack.

            With stories within stories, about stories, and including stories, the amount of permutation is endless. Literally. Here, listen to this story:
            >there once was an old man who had a library with a trillion unique books about old men with unique libraries .

            Boom. That’s so many stories it is mathematically impossible for us to live in base reality packed into ONE SENTENCE.

            Face it, you live in a story and simulation theory is stupid.

            ___

            I’ve though a lot more about this but I think it is a good start just to see your response.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I just realized it might help if you were familiar with the moronation that is simulation theory:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis#Simulation_argument

            With the idea that stories are as real as the reader makes them disposing of the “granularity” argument.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That might affirm the pervasiveness of divine archetypes and synchronicities and stuff.

            I would ask if it would be possible to live in a story in a world with no stories and still be infinite, but then I guess it could just be in a story with infinite stories.

            That's really fricked actually

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Depends on what you mean by “live”

            I would argue it is impossible to live without stories.
            Obviously that begs what it means to “live” and what exactly compromises a “story”.

            But I have to insist, I’m much more interested in your thoughts than my own.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It is better than simulation at least. Maybe just because the simulation itself would be a complex story made by its paramters and fate.

            a lot of antiquity philosophy stuff involves extrapolating on phenomenon and some of it works because everything (should) conform to the same natural laws.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Funny, that. You intuitively understand a simulation would require a story to function.

            Funny.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            it would also "be" a story right? even though it's really complex ?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            the simulation itself I mean

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It’s possible stories are the only thing that actually “exists”.

            It all depends on how you define the words. But the way we understand words comes from stories.
            The word “run” means
            > To move swiftly on foot so that both or all feet are not on the ground during each stride.
            What is swiftly? What is a foot? Both? Feet?
            ….GROUND?!?
            these are all conceptual. You understand them through context from a past so distant you only remember flashes of memories funny or interesting enough that you share them with your parents or long term friends…
            Stories. Memories are stories. Everything is.

            If you were brought up thinking feet were hands or swift meant slow. The meaning of the story changes when the word is used. If you thought thusly, a story with a man running would mean they slowly crossed a distance doing a handstand. Quite different, right?

            Wait, I’m going to stop now. I was about to get weird and there is not point if you aren’t following.

            Also, not exactly the point of the thread… but also maybe?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I get it now, thanks.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Don’t lie, you butthole.

            I don’t even get it, I’m just trying to convey it to you,

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            youre right, sorry. I was just ashamed for asking a pointless question

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > I was just ashamed for asking a pointless question
            This just makes you seem even more stupid.

            There is no such thing as a pointless question.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            sorry I mean I do get it conceptually. I didn't mean to claim I understand it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I'm done, sorry

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Haha be more confident.

            It’s fine to be wrong. Plus remember the context of the thread you are in.
            I may be lying or deceiving you.

            Try not to be too pure for a corrupt world. Many people are way more capable of deceit and lies than I am, and they may hope to gain from interacting with you.

            Like I said, I’m way more interested in your perspective, so don’t agree with me passively or needlessly if you have something to add… especially if you are concerned you wil be mocked or argued against.

            Speak Truth to the best of your ability. Change your mind if you feel the need to.
            Tell me why you started this.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > I was just ashamed for asking a pointless question
            This just makes you seem even more stupid.

            There is no such thing as a pointless question.

            To be clear, I’m being mean, but all questions have an answer.

            Lacking answers is nothing to be embarrassed about. We all lack answers.
            Questions are more important anyways,

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Did you ever think about stories as a type of simulation? It's common knowledge that your body reacts as if the story you are experiencing is actually happening. You are putting yourself in the event and mentally experiencing what it would be like

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Nta but the way I understand it that all stories are an outgrowth of "theory of mind" an inbuilt assumption that people have minds and do things because of desires, for reasons. But all reasons are "confabulated", they give an explanation for an action but don't cause it. So any explanation or story you can give is automatically a lie. Hell, the phrase "telling stories" is synonymous with lying where I come from

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            My argument here would be that all human understanding is “stories”, so your argument would need to be that all human understanding is “lies”.

            Other than arguing over the definition of “Iie”, that is fine; but I’m rather deep on a definition of “lie” right now so I’m not ready to concede that so simply for conversation sake.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      > but the tech is storytelling
      Please say more. I’ve discussed similar before and I would love to hear your thoughts before poisoning them with my own.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I have a relative who believes in law of attraction. Everything she says is a lie because she wants it to be the truth, she's stolen from literally everyone she knows, and everyone thinks she's moronic.
    Moral of the story is that lying is moronic, magic or not.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Lying to yourself is certainly the height of moronation.

      Lying to the others, while evil, is possibly not moronic. It is certainly less moronic than lying to yourself.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Truth is magic.

  8. 1 month ago
    King Rael (formerly King Paimon)

    Do you mean Spiritual Gaslighting?
    The Demiurge is good at it...however, there is no better gaslight specialist than the Ancient of Days and the One he sends.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Magic is the general ability of your cognition to affect others.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    if lying is magic then i can't do it

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It sounds like you're virgin

      Pls go back roblox

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I don't tell lies since they take a lot of effort to keep consistent

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *