420chan now has a web-based IRC client available, right here
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
A subject is required when posting a new thread
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists


Community Updates

420chan now supports HTTPS! If you find any issues, you may report them in this thread
this cunt by Martin Turveydock - Thu, 25 Jan 2018 05:37:13 EST ID:XRtggDpr No.208623 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1516876633072.jpg -(5723B / 5.59KB, 256x162) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 5723
so Jordan Peterson has recently been interviewed on britains channel 4 by Cathy Newman and there has been a substantial reaction to it. Peterson's fanboys are all claiming his victory as if this interview was a major debate. I'm going to try and summarise it so that we can all critique the ideas as much as we want and give our opinions, discuss etc. There was a thread about this on /b/ but I thought i'd move the topic here to /pss/. btw here s a link to the interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54
the yellowtext below is jordans answers

Newman: you've said men need to grow up, why?
>because theres nothing good about it and men are left useless and miserable if they dont take responsibility over their lives.
A crisis of masculinity, what do you do about it?
>you tell them to grow up and take responsibility, live a life worth living
the majority of your listeners is male?
>yes apparently. Men have something to offer and set the world straight.
what's gone wrong then?
> all sorts of things, men never receive encouragement. Men are starving for my message,

[2:30] does it bother you that 80% of your audience is male
>no, it's just the way it is.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
59 posts and 8 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Isabella Sullerridge - Mon, 19 Feb 2018 21:15:48 EST ID:AwbVlekG No.208761 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Lillian Sabberham - Mon, 19 Feb 2018 22:31:29 EST ID:9zW8Ti/l No.208764 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Who gives a shit about proper conduct in academia, right?
Clara Windergold - Tue, 20 Feb 2018 02:04:21 EST ID:QBdc3KF4 No.208765 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Part of his problem is that he is intensely combative and defensive of himself and his ideas in conversation. It comes across as extremely arrogant and does no help to make his ideas clearer. The recent conversation he had with russel brand was a bit better. Basically he wants to psychologise basically all sorts of social problems. Instead of fixing the system he seems to want to make wveryone more capable within it. Its still fucking stupid tho for several reasons, among them that there arent the resources to provide everyone with their personal psychologist. And he has beliefs about deeper truths which for him trump empirical reality as we know it.
Isabella Sullerridge - Tue, 20 Feb 2018 08:32:23 EST ID:AwbVlekG No.208766 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I work in academia and have watched you derp all over the thread. Just stop blabbering with that angle, you're better off admitting you just don't like his results.
And as a matter of fact he's successfully defended his results to other academics.
No bump again.
Lillian Sabberham - Tue, 20 Feb 2018 09:01:07 EST ID:9zW8Ti/l No.208767 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I directly asked you what was wrong with my opinion and you didn't reply.

So I guess you've got the academic appeal to authority down pat.

Indoors by Alice Grimway - Mon, 19 Feb 2018 03:02:56 EST ID:Vz5f1vq5 No.208757 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1519027376325.png -(35166B / 34.34KB, 198x242) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 35166
If you had to do an Anne Frank and stay indoors for an unknowable but at least several years time, and you knew for a fact that you could never go outside for risk of being caught, would you prefer to have a window (or possible a live video feed) of your immediate surroundings, or would you prefer no window, as to not tempt yourself into wanting to go outside when you cannot?
Basil Brookfuck - Mon, 19 Feb 2018 16:40:13 EST ID:fOlLozee No.208760 Ignore Report Quick Reply
it'd be so much better to have a window are you retarded?
Lillian Sabberham - Mon, 19 Feb 2018 22:30:42 EST ID:9zW8Ti/l No.208763 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I've basically lived like that for the last 5 years, and having internet access is probably the only reason I didn't put a bullet in my head.

transphobia by Isabella Danningstick - Thu, 27 Jul 2017 12:48:12 EST ID:D27gVweR No.208297 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1501174092415.jpg -(15352B / 14.99KB, 532x320) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 15352
Why is there so much more visceral hatred of trans people than gay or bi people? I've noticed this for a while but comment sections of recent news articles really brought it to light. I keep seeing over and over again people saying stuff like "I don't mind gays but trans people are mentally ill blahblah SJWs something something free speech" and people making a million "logical" excuses as to why trans people shouldn't have certain rights that don't really make sense and do nothing to really hide their irrational contempt but why is that really? Is it just because trans people are more noticeable? Less physically appealing generally to most people? "Icky"? I feel like anti-SJW crusaders have made this the hill they want to die on and it doesn't make a lot of sense considering the amount of trans people in their own community is vastly higher than average.

Also while I don't think it matters to save us some posts on this incredibly slow board I'm neither trans nor gay and I don't really get on the liberal outrage train very often I'm just a mostly neutral, vaguely left-leaning party.
108 posts and 10 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Cedric Gishdale - Sun, 11 Feb 2018 03:04:45 EST ID:3sTElr79 No.208710 Ignore Report Quick Reply
wow, well done, very exhaustive research


and these are just transgender people from that list. so, you're welcome?
Samuel Segglefudge - Sun, 11 Feb 2018 15:00:36 EST ID:Z8O31R6V No.208713 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Ex-fucking-actly. It's more than a little disgusting that the people who are more or less directly responsible for higher suicide rates among transpeople use that statistic as their main argument as to why a certain group of people shouldn't have ultimate authority of their own bodies.
Isabella Blugglenatch - Mon, 12 Feb 2018 09:43:11 EST ID:9zW8Ti/l No.208718 Ignore Report Quick Reply
While Lynn Conway and Deirdre McCloskey may be transgender scientists, the way they acted during the J Micheal Bailey saga really doesn't speak well for their academic conduct.

William Hiffinghotch - Sun, 18 Feb 2018 18:01:33 EST ID:AwbVlekG No.208756 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I actually have a lot of gay and black friends and I don't think any of them ever hang out with any white SJWs or people who would consider themselves passionate about social justice.
As a matter of fact I know they hate a lot of them, because a lot of the social justice types tend to be really narcissistic and rip people off.
It's a good point that they're virtue signal a lot; they do it because they're narcissists and virtue signalling is an easy way to get attention/popularity on social media, which is of utmost importance to them.
Lillian Sabberham - Mon, 19 Feb 2018 22:29:30 EST ID:9zW8Ti/l No.208762 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>a lot of the social justice types tend to be really narcissistic

Par for the course with online activism, unfortunately. Part of it is that the white (especially male) SJWs have actually argued themselves into a corner in which their own logic precludes them having an opinion on the topics they care about. So they have to present themselves as extra enlightened to gain leeway to comment on topics that aren't "for them" or their demographic to discuss.

Kinda how the /pol/ alt-right can build conspiracy theories in which Jews run the world and stop them being allowed to say racist or sexist things, and yet they spend all day saying racist and sexist things. It must be because they're so extra redpilled.

Curated Society by Archie Blackwill - Wed, 14 Feb 2018 03:50:57 EST ID:39IBXNMV No.208728 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1518598257318.jpg -(65051B / 63.53KB, 1280x720) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 65051
>Essentially the Authoritarian Left-Libertarian paradise everyone wants to live in:

Religion is banned outside of a personal philosophical context.
Essentially meaning religion as an oranized entity and force is illegal. However religious texts,images and iconography would still be available for individual study via an internet 3.0, libraries, museums and distributed archives. Some religious architecture of significance would obviously have to be preserved.

As for the rest of society I'm making the assumption that humaniry is going to likely destroy itself and be replaced by machines. However being in North America I would advoacte the cessation of poor land use and misuse of resources.

Personally I like a lot of the benefits of the American Way of Life. But unfrotunately it's going to go away forever if we dont invest ourselves intellectually,financially, societally and physically. As for the rest of the world I dont really give a shit about them. Being a Canadien or a US Citizen is a real priviledge, despite one's heritage.
15 posts and 4 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Wesley Finnerton - Fri, 16 Feb 2018 09:03:38 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.208749 Ignore Report Quick Reply
At least I'm not shitposting in real life. Like religious people do.
Sophie Fankinfuck - Fri, 16 Feb 2018 11:15:55 EST ID:hbTtukSa No.208750 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1518797755710.png -(1295833B / 1.24MB, 1156x1385) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Those Jehovahs Witnesses on the corner and the Mormon missionaries are shit posting in real life.
Hugh Dibberwon - Fri, 16 Feb 2018 20:37:15 EST ID:hbTtukSa No.208751 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1518831435311.jpg -(1768558B / 1.69MB, 2000x1319) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Personally I'm not really concerned about the implications of these sort of posts. If I get arrested or killed for exercising my first amendment rights I would be considered makes me a Secular Martyr. This is a Holy War against religious Zealots everywhere for the freedom of all peoples.
Barnaby Snodwill - Sun, 18 Feb 2018 03:11:23 EST ID:hbTtukSa No.208754 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1518941483356.jpg -(14514B / 14.17KB, 365x138) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Dont be mistaken I'd put rounds on some Nazis too. I don't hate Nazis but it is what it is I'm a Liberul Libertarian and they hate me.

.45cal AR-15
Barnaby Snodwill - Sun, 18 Feb 2018 12:25:05 EST ID:hbTtukSa No.208755 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1518974705356.jpg -(56562B / 55.24KB, 700x348) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
I've been thinking how most politicians could be replaced by extras from central casting without too much effort. Its a very novel idea considering how useless they are;politicians not extras.

Theory by Angus Blashdock - Sun, 11 Feb 2018 23:32:12 EST ID:vU7xlEnh No.208717 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1518409932751.jpg -(3171B / 3.10KB, 196x200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 3171
I have a theory as to the purpose of this reality. I think, thru a variety of means, this reality is how god learns to be alone and powerless. Every life lived eventually comes to this conclusion. We are all alone and powerless before the unknown. The more we desire the more we suffer. This is how god learns desirelessness. He watches us try to survive, to have eachother, and to understand, and he sees us fail on all accounts inevitably.
And so he learns its okay to be alone, powerless, and confused. I don't think god fully understands what's really happening. This shit is making me want to fucking kill myself so badly. Please help.
5 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Matilda Mangerfoot - Wed, 14 Feb 2018 08:57:29 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.208731 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Yes. Random shit is happening. If God really existed, only God would exist, because God needs nothing. Or else, it's not God. But just some alien wanker that evolved earlier than mankind and seeded Earth with life.
Rebecca Handerhun - Wed, 14 Feb 2018 13:02:47 EST ID:WFGKCTJE No.208735 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I mean, where do you get the idea that God needs nothing? If you get that from the idea of medieval theologians, the suggestion that God must be perfect in every respect, then while God might have no needs in the sense of needing something else in order to sustain its existence, that doesn't preclude the possibility that it desires something, that it 'needs' to do something to be fulfilled in its own nature. Thus, if its nature is to create, then it 'needs' to create, and thus would, since its desire and its ability to manifest its desire are also as perfect as its lack of need.

>> just some alien wanker that evolved earlier than mankind and seeded Earth with life
Well, under some definitions of 'God' it absolutely would be. What if the alien in question didn't just seed our planet, but is the one running the simulation which our universe is contained in? That individual would certainly qualify as God under some definitions, but not others. What about the alien wanker that evolved the earliest? The one whose simulation contains all other simulations (in the Omega Point/ Simulation Hypothesis mash-up theory) and certainly would qualify as God under the biggest definition it makes sense to discuss, yet still wouldn't qualify as God under certain other, more specific definitions, some of which specify a being of much less power than that.

In general, if you're going to use medieval definitions to try to answer questions about what God is or might be, you're always going to come up against the problem that medieval theologians' ideas about a lot of things were really dumb and self-contradictory.
Eugene Siggleforth - Thu, 15 Feb 2018 19:18:56 EST ID:blmfRlfa No.208744 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1518740336378.png -(288870B / 282.10KB, 458x301) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
The alien wanker is oddly relatable to Vishnu who is the sleeping god in whose dream is the universe. Brahma the creator god sits on the lotus that represents divine energy and divine grace, and the lotus grows from the navel of Vishnu.

20. An important function of myth: how to live a human life
Henry Chinderridge - Sat, 17 Feb 2018 01:21:25 EST ID:ZrOoKGT8 No.208752 Ignore Report Quick Reply
"Brahman is full of all perfections. And to say that Brahman has some purpose in creating the world will mean that it wants to attain through the process of creation something which it has not. And that is impossible. Hence, there can be no purpose of Brahman in creating the world. The world is a mere spontaneous creation of Brahman. It is a Lila, or sport, of Brahman. It is created out of Bliss, by Bliss and for Bliss. Lila indicates a spontaneous sportive activity of Brahman as distinguished from a self-conscious volitional effort. The concept of Lila signifies freedom as distinguished from necessity."
Henry Chinderridge - Sat, 17 Feb 2018 01:26:05 EST ID:ZrOoKGT8 No.208753 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I should probably add to that, that in other cases (non-Hindu) creativity transcends even God itself (as is the case with A.N. Whitehead and process philosophy) so who's to say.

God should be VAC b& by Phoebe Siddleman - Tue, 06 Feb 2018 12:54:26 EST ID:xc7CY0zb No.208664 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1517939666716.jpg -(152017B / 148.45KB, 1920x1200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 152017
God is a concept that defies logic and language.
6 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Emma Mocklechetch - Mon, 12 Feb 2018 16:39:18 EST ID:WFGKCTJE No.208720 Ignore Report Quick Reply
All phenomena of human cognition are the result of chemical releases interacting with brain architecture and culture. Including all the information and epistemological assumptions that go into your assertion that the greater whole can be completely explained by biology and biochemistry.

If I cannot trust the products of my cognition that experience God because they are neurochemical in nature, then how can I trust the product of my cognition that says I shouldn't trust God experiences because they are neurochemical, which are also neurochemical in nature?
Thomas Bardway - Mon, 12 Feb 2018 19:22:03 EST ID:X2T4K+gn No.208721 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1518481323445.jpg -(189522B / 185.08KB, 1000x659) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
A simple concept that arises from our basic biology would be something more along the lines of pleasure. Dopamine --> receptor = pleasure. Simple. I've argued that God is much more than this. It has to do with not only psychology but philosophy. It is probably different for every person. It might even be a different combination of not so simple mechanisms at play in each event. For example the sublime feeling created by witnessing the Grand Canyon might feel divine in nature. However my earlier example about finding "Gods Path" might be something different entirely. So the concept of God can be a helpful catch all for describing these powerful experiences. I was raised loosely on Christianity so that no doubt plays a role in why I have even come to use the word God at all, but it could be anything. The whispering winds, the collective unconscious, the Om, my ancestors guiding hands, etc.
Emma Gocklepin - Tue, 13 Feb 2018 18:46:47 EST ID:4+oWREai No.208722 Ignore Report Quick Reply

I don't think there has ever been a more debunked hypothesis about our world than the god hypothesis. It's almost an anti-theory based on how thoroughly debunked it is. If anything, one of the few things we can known with certainty is God's non-existence.

The concept of god itself is very nebulous, so it makes it almost, if not flat out impossible, impossible to argue for in any meaningful way. But even if we defined such a thing with a degree of clarity, the evidences given to prove such a thing always fall flat. Either they are entirely unfalsifiable, or downright false. The only piece left remaining after the debunking is the nebulous concept; Just a fuzzy idea that can be conveniently used interchangeably with words and experiences like 'awe' and 'love'. Making it even more worthless.

I'll say it again. One of the few things we can know for certainty is God's non-existence.
Rebecca Handerhun - Wed, 14 Feb 2018 12:45:35 EST ID:WFGKCTJE No.208734 Ignore Report Quick Reply
But you have just identified the fundamental problem while dodging it. Almost all usages of the term God have highly different meanings and implications, while all 'tests' or attempts to prove or disprove the hypothesis rely on disproving a single, usually very narrow definition of what God is or what that term might be used to entail, and then takes that to mean that all such talk is nonsense.

The tools of materialistic empiricism are not only clumsy at answering metaphysical questions, they invariably lead to errors and absurdities when pressed to answer them, and because of our society's reliance on the empirical method in all other areas of life, in a perverse example of the Peter principle, when empiricism fails to be able to satisfyingly answer metaphysical questions, we have the gall to declare that metaphysical questions have no answers, are irresolvable, or simply refer to nothing at all. This is intellectual short-sightedness on naked display.

Which is a shame, because at earlier periods of human history learned individuals understood that the different sciences have intrinsically different methods, that the techniques of physics don't perfectly translate to metaphysics, and so divided their intellectual labors accordingly. Having forgotten this and in turn elevated obeisance to the scientism to the level of a cult, we have also fomented much of the strife in society that has characterized the modern period, which all could have been avoided with a little more tact, generosity of spirit, and interdisciplinary communication in the past.

In short, I agree that most of the straw-man hypotheses those who have purported to 'test' the God hypothesis were testing for were things that were indeed patently absurd and of course don't exist. I even acknowledge that many of the instances of what people refer to as 'God' fall within the categories of such things, and also don't exist. However, it's also fact that not all interpretations or permutations of the idea of God have been tested, or are testable by our science or are even amenable to the methodologies of materialistic empiricism in principle, and so have not been debunked. The most you c…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Eugene Siggleforth - Thu, 15 Feb 2018 19:04:53 EST ID:blmfRlfa No.208743 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1518739493378.jpg -(89029B / 86.94KB, 640x720) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>However, it's also fact that not all interpretations or permutations of the idea of God have been tested, or are testable by our science or are even amenable to the methodologies of materialistic empiricism in principle, and so have not been debunked.
Well said, its almost as if we can't be absolutely certain about anything at all.

The means of travel influences perspectives by William Clushbid - Sun, 11 Feb 2018 03:26:46 EST ID:blmfRlfa No.208711 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1518337606245.jpg -(291606B / 284.77KB, 880x1443) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 291606
What do ya think? I think the kinds of transportation people use highly influences their perspectives of the world they live in and their relationship with it.

There's a certain malaise to skating through the city, an art to performing tricks. I'm not saying all skaters have the same perspective, that'd be ridiculous to say, there are other experiences that influenced whom that individual is and is becoming.

Drivers see a fast-moving world and only brief impressions of what's going on around them. The Situationists of pre-motorvehicle times surmised the concept of a "derive" as a "rapid passage through varried ambiences" and a kind of drift through their environment, perhaps with a destination in mind, but allowing their selves to be deviated or "drawn by the attractions of the terrain and the encounters they find there."

The Situationists believed their was a psychogeography to our environment, subtle and not-so-subtle influences through sensations (from without) and our feelings and thoughts (from within), and their interrelation. Unlike the idea of drifting, it seems like most drivers travel from point A to point B. They see people also driving in their hunks of metal and/or plastic asides them as obstacles, as annoyances, and yeah occasionally pleasant too. Nonetheless the overarching behaviors and feelings from their interactions within traffic are negative and may transfer over to the times they aren't driving.

I think the Situationists were wrong to say a derive is or has to be rapid. Walking and going on bicycle rides allow for alot more deviation from routine than a car does. (Albeit I'm forgetting the car adventures people can go on, its alot easier to get out of the city with a car than by any other means, and in rural areas you pretty much need a vehicle to get around.) Being a bicyclist as a part of traffic the bicyclist seems to take on a similar mindset as the driver. Though there's a big difference between a "joy-rider" and a "regular commuter".

A major difference between a car and a bicycle is that the driver of a car is surrounded by a ton of steel or whatever, with a motor powered by gas, and the…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
William Clushbid - Sun, 11 Feb 2018 03:47:20 EST ID:blmfRlfa No.208712 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1518338840245.jpg -(1017892B / 994.04KB, 1245x772) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
The idea about a derive not necessarily being rapid came from a more recent attempt at expanding the idea of a derive called Surregional Exploration, but that's besides the point.

Also, on the bus getting wherever you're going is out of your hands once you're on board, so its alot more relaxed of a commute than driving in traffic.

Country Portfolios....Canada and U.S.A. by Kim Jong-fun - Wed, 10 Jan 2018 09:40:31 EST ID:TriMJvI1 No.208602 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1515595231668.gif -(662767B / 647.23KB, 2717x2342) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 662767
The world's second largest country by surface but relatively small in terms of population, Canada punches above its weight in economic terms.

A federation of former British colonies, Canada follows the British pattern of parliamentary democracy, and the UK monarch is head of state. Ties with the US are now vital, especially in terms of trade, but Canada often goes its own way.

Both English and French enjoy official status, and mainly French-speaking Quebec - where pressure for full sovereignty has abated in recent years - has wide-ranging cultural autonomy. Indigenous peoples make up around 4% of the population.

Canada is one of world's top trading nations - and one of its richest. Alongside a dominant service sector, Canada also has vast oil reserves and is a major exporter of energy, food and minerals.


The USA is the world's foremost economic and military power, with global interests and an unmatched global reach.

America's gross domestic product accounts for close to a quarter of the world total, and its military budget is reckoned to be almost as much as the rest of the world's defence spending put together.

The country is also a major source of entertainment: American TV, Hollywood films, jazz, blues, rock and rap music are primary ingredients in global popular culture.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
4 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Augustus Cupperstadge - Fri, 09 Feb 2018 22:35:24 EST ID:tBJp2aGG No.208690 Ignore Report Quick Reply
What will be left of a distinct Anglophone Canadian nationalism/identity once the US acquires universal healthcare, Quebec finally manages to leave confederation, and the US starts giving a shit about hockey enough to beat you guys at it frequently?
You're just left with being an extra cold, extra liberal blue state with a parliament and less stabbings.
Augustus Clibblepug - Sat, 10 Feb 2018 02:24:10 EST ID:Kpl02ca1 No.208693 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Ways to tell this poster is American:
>assumes the only identity some completely foreign place has is totally dependent on what the US does
>assumes anyone who doesn't view the foreign place 100% through the lens of American values isn't American, and thus must just secretly be a butthurt native of place in question
Very sad, man. Are you deliberately trying to sound like a caricature?

By that logic, what is the US but a very conservative renegade Kingdom of the Empire with a circus for a government and more shootings? What is western civilization but a bunch of gothic barbarians pretending to be ancient greeks? What is the human species but a bunch of terrified monkeys desperately staving off death? We can trivialize the whole world like turtles all the way down if you want to go that route, fam.
Augustus Cupperstadge - Sat, 10 Feb 2018 18:03:40 EST ID:tBJp2aGG No.208701 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Take an amnesiac person and drop them in downtown Toronto. Ask them what country they think they're in.
Jenny Mottingsatch - Sat, 10 Feb 2018 21:02:07 EST ID:Kpl02ca1 No.208704 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Your myopia is staggering.
If you dropped a Canadian in Toronto...they would probably correctly guess they are in Canada. What kind of evidence do they have access to? I mean, if you dropped any random english speaking person in the middle of Sydney they might guess they are in New York, but they also might guess London. If the person in Toronto could see the combination of English and French signage, they would have better odds of being right than most other major english speaking cities.

The amnesiac in question would presume it is whatever major city whatever history or world culture they remember and are familiar with. Otherwise, you would seem to be asking us to assume that the default, memory-less human consciousness is American, which is absurd. What's the point of this silly thought experiment?
Phoebe Chonningtine - Sat, 10 Feb 2018 21:04:11 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.208705 Ignore Report Quick Reply
People might not guess they're in Canada, but they will FOR SURE accurately guess they're NOT in the USA.

The USA always has that unique USA look. That "This is a rich country but the infrastructure looks worse than fucking South Africa." look.

Compassion by Alice Pimmledale - Wed, 29 Nov 2017 19:54:41 EST ID:f7VKYGuq No.208552 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1512003281885.jpg -(157533B / 153.84KB, 780x800) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 157533
Rejecting any and all forms of transgenderism is an act of compassion.

If a person announces they are going to kill themselves, the compassionate action is NOT to allow them to continue. The compassionate action is to prevent them and help them no longer humor that idea. The same for trans individuals. Hormones are a direct assault on one's genetics. That is a slow form a suicide.
Mental illness is to be treated and compassionately guided.
23 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Alice Grimville - Fri, 19 Jan 2018 14:22:12 EST ID:4+oWREai No.208614 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Be easy on the guy. It seems more likely that he's struggling to understand than being some agitator for the heck of it.
Martha Pocklemat - Fri, 19 Jan 2018 16:02:01 EST ID:Vv1yxGNY No.208615 Ignore Report Quick Reply
No, I think he's arguing in bad faith, since he just told me my post said the exact opposite of what it was trying to say. He keeps hiding inside ontologically unknowable things like 'well when you heal a trauma what if you're only like, *seeming* to fix the trauma, man?' and so I'm incredulous his argument is serious or in good faith, which is why I stopped answering. This whole thread is garbage though, everyone should die.
Shit Blipperfun - Fri, 26 Jan 2018 23:35:01 EST ID:9zW8Ti/l No.208635 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>Maybe the person believing to be another gender is just uneasy with themselves due to some kind of trauma, and they blame it on their genitals to escape from the trauma

Maybe, but there is distinct clinical difference between the body dysphoria associated with abuse or neglect, and the dysphoria related to a different gender identity, which can and often does occur in people who have no history of being abused.

>And who knows, maybe it works, maybe by becoming transgender and pumping yourself full of hormones forever you have such a radical life experience that you've created a permanent chemically induced buffer to trauma..

Firstly, that makes no sense. Pumping yourself full of hormones is a decidely negative experience. Just as going on anti-psychotics, or undergoing shock therapy, is something a "normal" person would not willingly do, because it's very unpleasant. So logically, the people who DO do that, and see improvement afterwards, must have had a problem that was so intense that a radical procedure was both necessary and favorable to that problem.

Secondly, they were already transgender. That's why they needed the sex reassignment.

>Say that a customer goes to the mechanic not because the car isn't working but because there's a flashing red light and they don't know what it's for. The mechanic knows it, the customer knows nothing. In such a situation, the mechanic could easily spout some nonsense to the customer, but repair nothing except the warning red light, so that it doesn't flash anymore.
>This is my doubt. Are we fixing these people's problems, or are we just shutting off their flashing lights?

But this is directly analogous to what you're saying. "It can't be their gender identity, it must be depression or some other problem". Well guess what, we've tried that. We've tried treating gender dysphoria as a simple mental health issue. We've tried talking it away, we've tried anti-depressants, we've tried all of that. Clinically, sex reassignment is the most effective treatment for gender dysphoria (and yes, that's what the science says) that we have. Otherwise, as y…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
James Hellydale - Thu, 08 Feb 2018 07:10:26 EST ID:tBJp2aGG No.208669 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Redpanels is fash trash and you must bash said fash.
Cornelius Fanspear - Thu, 08 Feb 2018 17:27:15 EST ID:pDpYFcmy No.208679 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Man, that fucking comic. The notion that there's some cabal of scientists keeping evidence of genetic differences in intelligence from reaching the eyes of the public is one of the most ridiculous things the far-right has come up. It shows a complete lack of understanding about the scientific method and human nature in general.

In science, one of the qualifications a good hypothesis is that it needs to be falsifiable, meaning that your methods need to be clear and there needs to be the logical potential that it can be proven wrong. If it doesn't have this quality, it can't lead to a valid theory. Every single peer-reviewed study linking race to intelligence either has strong evidence against or was never truly falsifiable to begin with. I'm completely willing to consider any evidence anyone has in to the contrary, because I'm not bound by a specific pattern of thought or ideology, but I have a strong suspicion that there is no correlation.

Let's think about this from another angle. All humans constantly look for ways to elevate themselves and put down others. In the West, the dominant philosophy is scientific empiricism and the dominant race is Caucasian. If the majority race could actually prove their superiority using the most widely accepted method of reasoning in contemporary thought, there's no way they would try to keep that information secret. One might say that scientists are generally egalitarian and so desperately search for ways to disprove any theory that contradicts their world view, even going so far as to disregard scientific evidence and reason but I think human instinct is a lot more powerful than bleeding hearts.

Meditation by Phoebe Goodforth - Tue, 19 Jan 2016 10:45:31 EST ID:/XQxUE3u No.204775 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1453218331804.jpg -(552057B / 539.12KB, 1920x1200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 552057
Hey guys I'm just starting to learn how to meditate. So far I can go up to 3 minutes and after that I can't focus any longer. But, I'd say I'm starting off good.

How many of you here meditate on a daily basis? In what way does it help you? What is your favorite type of meditation?

I'm learning sleep meditation and zen. I want to broaden my horizons and love myself again. With this meditation I hope to achieve a higher level of being and be able to like myself and have a positive outlook on life.
125 posts and 14 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Nell Honeyfoot - Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:01:04 EST ID:2Xf6CogU No.208408 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1503946864577.jpg -(100710B / 98.35KB, 644x640) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
It's been a year and a half since I took up meditation. I feel like a whole different person now. No, i am a different person now. The old me was weak and insecure. Through meditation I have learned many things about myself and life itself. I see the world differently since I started doing this. I feel so grounded and happier. People have noticed that I'm doing good for myself and that I have changed. That's awesome in my book.

Hedda Fanbury - Tue, 29 Aug 2017 19:16:09 EST ID:hAlFpoKZ No.208411 Ignore Report Quick Reply

lmao tell that to the 10th dan of most martial arts organizations who can fuck your shit up with only a finger or two while smiling and teasing you and lecturing a whole class on how he is fucking your shit up
Oliver Billyway - Mon, 02 Oct 2017 22:21:49 EST ID:w9KFVcbk No.208453 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Haha. Thats what MEDICATION is for you crazy motherfucker. nb
Emma Huvingkun - Sun, 03 Dec 2017 16:51:30 EST ID:KVMLOWd9 No.208558 Ignore Report Quick Reply

I'm 28 and I'm beyond prepared for the afterlife. I've been in constant communion with the logos for years. I don't have the will to help others in such a way because if they cared they'd have began the effort already. This is a personal journey of self discovery through life and death.
Lydia Fallerbeck - Mon, 05 Feb 2018 22:13:19 EST ID:5OzBHOU1 No.208663 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Can't believe I made this thread 2 years ago and it's still on the first page. Good shit brahs!

I just recently got back into meditation and it's doing wonders for me just like it did back then. This time, I will use what I get out of meditation and use what I have learned about myself to better myself. Im finally taking action in my life and using this great tool to keep me on the right path.

Racism by Hamilton Soggledene - Thu, 28 Dec 2017 03:12:18 EST ID:KAVbWdaM No.208576 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1514448738873.jpg -(13119B / 12.81KB, 480x336) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 13119
Simple question. And I am looking for more insight into the line of thinking based on upbringing, and community ideals.

Why is it acceptable to call someone white, or black,l. But is taboo to call someone red or yellow?

Is it as simple as social conditioning? Or does it play a deeper part in the group psychology?
5 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Nathaniel Wimmlelat - Tue, 09 Jan 2018 13:46:07 EST ID:ZS66X4xy No.208594 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Please read posts before you get all butthurt over them.
>>aren't accurate to what the entire world's views
In my post I said:
This version of the term dichotomy you describe is specifically a north american issue
Moreover you claim:
>>This is obviously just your personal views
>>You also seem to assume that the only people who's opinions matter are white
Fuck. You. You don't know me man, how dare you tell me what my opinions are?
I was providing historical context for the history of the terms for color, and specifically the way they're used in NA. 'Black' means 'aboriginal' in Australia, but you don't get huffy about that? If you can't hear someone dispassionately describe the history of racism without automatically assuming the person talking about it is racist, you're either incredibly simple minded or a closet racist yourself.
It's obviously not the case that the people to whom these terms were applied opinion doesn't matter. Of course their opinion matters, but it's not germane to the question of the OP, which is why did the terms come to be seen as they are? Answering that question requires us to specify that the use of those english color terms to signify races is nearly a wholly white invention, which makes those terms etic demonyms, so an emic understanding of them is both irrelevant and confusing to comprehending their origin. Ergo, duh Natives had names for white people, but you can guarantee among them wasn't the english word 'white' (unless they were talking to English people.) When used in today's society, sure english speaking people will use white to refer to white people because that's the norm (that white people established) -- but that doesn't change the fact that it doesn't carry the same connotation of offensiveness that red or yellow do, which is again, OPs point. Otherwise, why would there have been the need for invention of different english slurs for whites, like cracker, honky, howlie, etc? Do you see how my post addresses OP's question, while your post just gets huffy and defensive about how that can't be the explanation, and does nothing to pr…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Simon Sengerchere - Tue, 09 Jan 2018 17:22:36 EST ID:65NWSo4c No.208596 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1515536556200.jpg -(20549B / 20.07KB, 475x479) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Well, at least I got you to explain yourself properly. And, you don't need allies in an argument to get to the truth, that will happen either way. Cheers.
Simon Sengerchere - Tue, 09 Jan 2018 17:35:05 EST ID:65NWSo4c No.208597 Ignore Report Quick Reply
By the way, this world deserves to be in a better place, a place where you can call someone a "monkey", using the recent H&M example, and instead of being offended that you used a word that has been used derogatorily against people of African descent, you are explosive with joy and reverence of your ape and primate ancestry. A world where "jolly african-american" means "dude" or "guy" again and inspires camamraderie, like it did in the 1800s Old West, or today in ghetto black neighbrohoods and white teenagers use "nigga" alike to mean "friend", instead of one where people use it against someone's descent or assume someone wants to hurt them when they say it. Call me a "word revivalist", but I think we could live in that world, really, one where true freedom is reachable and our collective planetary love powers our souls and spirits to previously unattainable heights. We cannot get there by allowing words power over us, being scared of the past, or banning and trying to get rid of or destroy certain ways of thinking. Think about what I said.
Jarvis Cravinglick - Wed, 10 Jan 2018 08:40:25 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.208601 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Fun fact, I was discussing this with a gay guy at some party and some random guy walked past us and gave the gay guy shit for saying "faggot" within the context of the conversation.
It was just so absurd.
Shit Blipperfun - Fri, 26 Jan 2018 23:11:59 EST ID:9zW8Ti/l No.208633 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>Is it as simple as social conditioning? Or does it play a deeper part in the group psychology?

In the grand scheme of things, it's simply social conditioning. Group identity is made by the use of certain terms, and the rules of these terms can be pretty esoteric. In Australia for instance, it's almost encouraged for people to use the most insulting terms possible for their friends. Of course, people outside the friendship group using such terms would be considered insulting, but by the same token being overly formal would be considered an insult on it's own. Every culture has these implicit and explicit rules regarding social etiquette.

>Why is it acceptable to call someone white, or black,l. But is taboo to call someone red or yellow?

Specifically about these terms, like someone else said, that's an American way of doing things. "Red" and "yellow" were pretty common until the 60s/70s as I understand it. The terms became taboo for the same reason they were used. They connote otherness, illegitimacy, whereas "whiteness" (and, in black communities, "blackness") connotes authenticity.

There's actually a really good book called "Appropriating Blackness" that explains how the black community started to strictly police it's own ideas of "blackness" and exclude members of it's own community (especially gay people) on the grounds that they were undermining that group identity.

Solipsism by Caroline Goodson - Mon, 11 Dec 2017 09:34:02 EST ID:xc7CY0zb No.208563 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1513002842555.png -(598399B / 584.37KB, 1400x2700) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 598399
  1. I cannot prove anything beyond Solipsism.
  2. God and other beings are akin to chatroom bots.
  3. The Demiurgebot simulating this reality for me has introduced the concept of "heaven".
  4. By simply believing in Heaven I can go there.

As soon as I finished coming up with this I heard "Highway to Hell" on the radio.
9 posts and 4 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Jack Chisslemet - Mon, 22 Jan 2018 21:22:22 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.208618 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>This is true, but unfortunately it's a value that isn't really taught anymore. Any kind of criticism of anything is taken as undermining the very essence of that thing itself, whereas past eras understood that constant critique is the only thing that makes anything stronger.

This still exists in the academic world. Science, art, philosophy, they all still function on the concept of "critique to improve".
Nigel Claywell - Tue, 23 Jan 2018 19:01:08 EST ID:LkFQtrYH No.208619 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Yes, but unfortunately the power of science, art, and philosophy to influence the attitude of the masses is presently waning (whereas it was clearly waxing in the prior century.)
Nigel Gashville - Tue, 23 Jan 2018 22:37:56 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.208620 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Art, science and philosophy never had influence over the masses. In the past, the nobility and rich just made sure the masses had no control.
Nigel Claywell - Wed, 24 Jan 2018 00:47:01 EST ID:LkFQtrYH No.208621 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>never had influence
>>no control
I think we both know that's a little bit of an over simplification and not uniformly true, but we're talking in very vague generalities anyway.
Cedric Bobberhone - Wed, 24 Jan 2018 21:14:24 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.208622 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Hey I like vague generalities. It's like a little appetizer before the main meal.

Pages Next>>
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Report Post
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.