420chan now has a web-based IRC client available, right here
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
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
Subject
Comment
[*]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
File

Sandwich


Community Updates

420chan now supports HTTPS! If you find any issues, you may report them in this thread
NDE by Graham Docklewill - Wed, 04 Jan 2017 15:30:31 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207543 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1483561831832.jpg -(24899B / 24.32KB, 492x250) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 24899
So I've had a few NDE's, one of which was ongoing for months and months while the others were instantaneous. It was really the one that went on for months that had the most drastic impact by far.

But anyway, I noticed that I actually line up with all of these symptoms of NDE.
Anyone else here a fellow NDE'er?
http://iands.org/aftereffects-of-near-death-states.html
4 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Ebenezer Bloshworth - Sat, 07 Jan 2017 08:05:39 EST ID:xA39R98b No.207560 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207557
I connect with the statement he made and see it this way:

Our consciousness is predisposed one way or another to not let it's full range be seen / known to us at our current stage of evolution. It's basic desire / goal is to experience and learn and it has realized down the line the experiencing and learning would become limited if we know and see everything in full range already. It's like opening up GTA San Andreas the first time and you've got 100% saved game with 98m. Now you don't even care about killing ballas anymore, you think you're just so far ahead. Or imagine living like the movie Limitless portrays. If everybody saw so far ahead, that there would be little to no chance for a downfall, the possibilities for deep-rooted lessons would become very limited. Eventually, I assume, people would be living their bliss with no burning desire (and I mean BURNING something like the desire to become wealthy that being all-out broke with a dream gives) to do anything, except longetivity. The huge unknown that's in front of our lives simply gives us all the possibilities and probabilities and is a tool of discovery.

Your consciousness wants to learn about self, so it wants to know and see how will you act and come along if X is Y, then Z happens. I believe there's a certain hierarchy of intelligence in play when it comes to our lives, minds and bodies, and I think we're somewhere at the mid-point or below the centerline. Basically I think we're noobs in the game of universe.
>>
Ebenezer Bloshworth - Sat, 07 Jan 2017 08:10:57 EST ID:xA39R98b No.207561 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207560
Oh and free will. The unknown gives us or expands our free will.
>>
Charlotte Bluddlegold - Sat, 07 Jan 2017 15:48:51 EST ID:BKJX7E+7 No.207562 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207556

>If consciousness is infinite and immortal, it is in your body's best interest, and is an emergent evolutionary phenomenon, for you to have no knowledge of this.

Yet there's plenty of religions that argue that we indeed have an immortal consciousness in the form of a soul. Believers "know" this to be true, and indeed act like it as well.

So there'd be a real issue here with your argument if we're gonna take the evolution of mind into context here.

My argument was that NDEs exist as a behavioral strategy to survive in the event that your old behaviors leads to your near-death. Sure, not a strong point and I can think of many counter-arguments, both evolutionary and philosophical, against it.

But yours is that the body itself has some mechanisms to prevent us from realizing our supposed immortal nature. This is in my view even worse, for example wouldn't our bodies prevent the development of spiritual religion as a consequence?
>>
Cornelius Gottingridge - Sat, 07 Jan 2017 17:49:58 EST ID:2GsJcMxc No.207563 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207562
No, there are evolutionary benefits to believing in spiritual things without knowing them in the same way we know the feeling of gravity pushing our bodies down. it can help reduce anxiety and fear, and give one a sense of purpose to believe in spiritual things.

It's just like temperature. If we get too hot, we die, but with no heat we also die. There is an ideal amount of heat.

In the same way, there is an ideal amount of spiritual knowledge - a vague intuition, backed by belief. If the body allowed us to have too much spiritual knowledge it would threaten the body's survival, and if it allowed none, not even an unformed intuition of meaning, then its survival would also be threatened by nihilism which would lead to suicide of excessive risk-taking.

In fact, because religion and spirituality have evolved, we could say that it's in the body's interest to allow us to have partial, vague, obfuscated intuitions of immortality, while restricting clear knowledge of it.

I'm in a rush and I'm not alone right now, so this might not be as well formulated as it could have been.
>>
Jarvis Greencocke - Sat, 07 Jan 2017 21:57:39 EST ID:Z08uqMmD No.207564 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I'm a little drunk so I couldn't read the whole thing, but I've almost died several times; not from physiological trauma, but from a more instantaneous variety.

I show alot of the outcomes, including a lack of fear of death, although a healty fear of dying stays with me; I don't think dying will be pleasant though the aftermath will be fine.

The most pronounced NDE that I had involved rolling in a car. I was uninjured, but was able to see my relative importance in this world. Watching the traffic on the highway pass by my totalled car, it showed me how insignificant I am to this world. The world just kept on moving past my world changing event. It made me cry at first, huddled up in a blanket I scavenged from my trunk, on the side of the highway. I'm not sure why I cried, maybe just coming to terms with how insignificant I am.

Well that's what I took from it.


"Loving" children by Hamilton Turveybanks - Tue, 03 Jan 2017 01:35:16 EST ID:Id5quEqH No.207537 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1483425316822.jpg -(150914B / 147.38KB, 1520x1080) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 150914
Sup /pss/, I gotta question. Usually when people think of pedophiles or hebephiles, people with a sexual attraction to the young and/or underage. the image we have is some sleezy pervert who exploits and manipulates children for his own sexual gratification. But do you think it's possible for a grown man or woman to genuinely experience what we would call "love" in the less familiar sense for someone who is underage and how underage and how far apart would the two parties have to be for it to be considered unreasonable?

Basically, what I'm asking is do you think it's possible for a person to be sexually attracted not so much to children, but to a particular child in such a way that it could legitimately be seen as love in the general sense as we understand it. And if that were the case, should society be willing to make a qualitative difference between that twenty or thirty something individual who engages in an otherwise monogamous affair with a thirteen year old boy or girl because he or she feels that they are "in love" with them, between him/her and say someone else who just has a queer sort of fetish for fucking thirteen year olds because "thirteen year olds are sexy"?
>>
Emma Gessletit - Tue, 03 Jan 2017 09:03:42 EST ID:cU67cn3z No.207538 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207537
I think such a thing is possible, but doesn't address the main argument against pedos, which is that children are innocent and can't make decisions, etc.

I think I would be okay with such a case if the feeling was mutual and nothing sexual happened until everyone was the legal age for consent (which should probably be 16).

I remember this rabbi pedo who had gay crushes on a number of the little jew boys, but he never acted on his feelings because he cared about them in a genuine way and didn't just want to fuck. Iirc, he told people about his feelings on his death bed, and that he didn't act on them.
>>
Matilda Buzzway - Tue, 03 Jan 2017 21:03:25 EST ID:Id5quEqH No.207542 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207538
>but doesn't address the main argument against pedos, which is that children are innocent and can't make decisions, etc.
>I think I would be okay with such a case if the feeling was mutual and nothing sexual happened until everyone was the legal age for consent (which should probably be 16).

I think most people would just say that a guy in his late 20's who falls madly in love with a 12 year old girl or a 30 something year old woman falling head over heels and writing love poetry for a 14 year old boy have mental problems. If the underage boy or girl also believed they had similar feelings, most people would probably tell them they're too young to understand.
>>
Angus Billingstone - Fri, 06 Jan 2017 20:07:08 EST ID:5FY/Jbq3 No.207555 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207542
Yeah I agree lol. Only in strict situations (like post-apocalypse etc) could I sanction such a thing, and even then I can't imagine how intimate (non-sexual) romance could arise when an undeveloped brain is involved.


Castro by Shitting Foddlechine - Mon, 28 Nov 2016 10:21:03 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207325 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1480346463510.jpg -(73500B / 71.78KB, 800x892) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 73500
Let's wax philosophical about Fidel Castro. The guy just died, but he was a living legend. Many loved him, many hated him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro

I think it would be awesome if we could discuss something like this in-depth. Like, if any of you are familiar with Castro, you should tell us how you feel about Castro and why. I don't want people coming in and being like, 'Oh he was just a cunt dictator' or 'Oh he was a hero', I want you guys to actually reference things Castro has done when you mention your opinion of him. Like, I think it'd be great if we could talk about the specifics of his presidency and rebellion.
6 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Polly Debberwater - Tue, 06 Dec 2016 19:43:16 EST ID:hvrM9XMO No.207416 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207405
Which points would you like verified?

Here's the Katrina one:
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/9311876/ns/us_news-katrina_the_long_road_back/t/katrina-aid-cuba-no-thanks-says-us/
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/09/05/katrina.cuba/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina
> Cuba: One of the first countries to offer aid, Cuba offered to send 1,586 doctors and 26 tons of medicine. This aid was rejected by the State Department.[18] Also, before the 2006 World Baseball Classic, Cuba said they would donate their share of the winnings to Katrina victims to ensure the United States embargo against Cuba was not violated. However, after the tournament, the U.S. government refused to allow the donation.
>>
James Goodspear - Wed, 14 Dec 2016 09:33:47 EST ID:d4DXKOh3 No.207450 Ignore Report Quick Reply
A guy on Belgian TV had a very nuanced look on Castro.

The guy was a dictator and has done some really fucked up shit. Cuba is also in pretty bad shape.

But compared to other countries in Latin-America, he did pretty well - I mean they're better off than Haiti, and he wasn't fucking absolute evil, like Pinochet and his cronies.
>>
the flicker (Seinesgleichen geschieht) !FwnV7hV52I - Sun, 25 Dec 2016 01:18:50 EST ID:DDgF44Bp No.207506 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207450
>Pinochet
That's the crux of the whole thing, isn't it? Pinochet assumed power in a US-backed coup. For more than a century, the US did things like occupy Latin American countries, back right-wing death squads, oust democratically elected socialist leaders, and alone, Castro's Cuba successfully resisted. The amount of resources that the CIA invested in toppling the government of a tiny, irrelevant nation is almost as mind-boggling as the fact that they failed. Castro held onto power despite the ruinous economic damage of US sanctions and hundreds of coup and assassination plots. For that I must admire him.
>>
John Fanson - Sun, 25 Dec 2016 14:12:40 EST ID:vzTBl2h4 No.207507 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207325
He was just a cunt dictator, but I can't deny that he was also a hero.
>>
Charles Pibberhedge - Fri, 30 Dec 2016 11:05:50 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207525 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I read some clickbait article today, '15 reasons why Che Guevara wasn't a hero.'
I thought it was hilarious. Just goes to show how fucking ridiculous people are.

I call them ridiculous because they considered Che a hero to begin with. Why would anyone consider a South American/African Communist warlord a hero? Oh, that's right, because his face is on a fucking t-shirt and he was an enemy of the USA.

These same retards think Fidel wasn't the hero. Why don't people know anything about history? Is history class in school pointless?


Atavism? by Cyril Dremmlefuck - Tue, 06 Dec 2016 15:26:13 EST ID:Y5UP2WQL No.207410 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1481055973605.jpg -(8587B / 8.39KB, 200x246) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 8587
Does anyone else have a bad reaction to the mentally handicapped? Am I literally hitler?
25 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Phoebe Semmlestog - Mon, 26 Dec 2016 22:54:56 EST ID:DLzNkYBL No.207510 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207500
>> why should rights be respected?
This is a very interesting point, and it kind of brings to fore the reality that the concept of rights is kind of circular. A right is a right because if you try to deny someone that right they will feel 'right' (justified) in preventing you from preventing them from exercising it. To say that it is anything more than that requires appeal to some system of metaphysics.
>>
Jack Goodhood - Tue, 27 Dec 2016 15:23:10 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207515 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207510
Well part of the issue is (from my somewhat educated understanding) is that originally the concept of 'rights' were 'things humans can innately perform unless physically oppressed' where are today 'rights' has been turned into something more like 'standard privileges' like 'the right to vote' and the idealistic 'right to healthcare'. Like the right to free speech and the right to bear arms and such all stem from this original idea of rights (which I think was Roman, maybe Greek) where in you cannot stop someone from speaking their mind or arming themselves with weaponry.

Idk, I like the classic concept of rights. My rights are my body and my ideas and that's about it as far as I care. Everything else is just a privilege. But don't let me throw us into a tangent. I'd love to talk more about the significant of rights and what's up with robbing people of their rights by throwing them in prison, and where that line needs to be drawn. Those are all fun, subjective subjects where there really is no right or wrong answer, just concensusses.
>>
Phoebe Semmlestog - Tue, 27 Dec 2016 18:45:21 EST ID:DLzNkYBL No.207517 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207515
I agree with the classic concept of rights and I think it is probably accurate, however I will say that that concept still relies on certain metaphysical assumptions. Why is it that the 'right to life' is innate? What is it about a human being that intrinsically gives them the right to defend their own existence? Other kinds of living entities we do not extend the concept of those rights too, why? It requires postulating that being human extends something to unique to what we see as 'our rights.'

I would contend that kind of statement must come from some metaphysical theory that at minimum defines the existence of humans as an inherent good, which does not logically follow from the pure concept of rights. I don't disagree though, but merely cautioning that an extreme skeptic might even object to that minimal conception of 'rights.'
>>
Basil Fishdirk - Wed, 28 Dec 2016 15:07:12 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207520 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207517
I don't think the right to life is innate, I think that's more along the lines of privileges, but the right to kill is definitely innate. Like, if I wanted to kill people, I could, period. That's my right. That's every living creature's right, and every living creature tries to capitalize on that right. Yes, the right to kill is definitely innate while the right to live is not, because you don't choose whether or not you live, you just either get lucky or get unlucky. You either are born and live, or you never are born, or you're born and die before you really get to live.

But you seem more upset by the laws surrounding killing. You wonder why society allows humans to kill animals but will not allow animals to kill humans, and why society allows humans to kill other humans to defend their own lives.

This is the way I see it; everything and everyone, especially alive, is/are self-centered. Any living creature wants it's own kind to surpass all other races and species, and humans are no different. We willingly oppress all other species, and the majority of humans concur that this is acceptable because it only advantages them greatly, and in life we must take advantage of all advantages unless we wish to perish, which we don't.

As for killing other humans in self-defense, well, like I said, the right to kill is innate within us, and I suppose the way society sees it, the right to kill must be suppressed heavily to sustain order, however, the right to kill may be enjoyed against humans who are not considered important to society, such as a human being that is causing serious chaos and disorder by doing something like robbing a bank or going on a rampage.

Humans rely heavily on society. Society is this massive entity that engulfs pretty much all of us. And when we act in ways counter to society, society strikes back. Slay random/peaceful/active members of society and society quickly slays you back. Haha don't even get me started on my whole 'society is like a human brain and the humans within society are like the cells of a body' speech.
>>
Ernest Godgestare - Thu, 29 Dec 2016 17:13:59 EST ID:2IPvcf8v No.207523 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I have a basically non reaction to the handicapped in general. I feel like gawking at them makes the whole thing worse. I don't try and talk around it though either. I don't really run into them all the time. Can't say I'd willing place myself around them all the time either.

Worst reaction is that I might find them kind of hard to deal with. I've met one in the past who was like that. But I don't think anyone but certain people would ever try and put themselves around the handicapped unless they wanted to take care of them or something.


Sigismund Schlomo Freud by Eliza Clipperwater - Sat, 17 Dec 2016 03:48:34 EST ID:5RTvrSPf No.207468 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1481964514674.png -(13424B / 13.11KB, 683x198) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 13424
What can /pss/ tell a layman about Mr. Froids?
6 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Albert Pockgold - Fri, 23 Dec 2016 20:12:23 EST ID:5RTvrSPf No.207503 Ignore Report Quick Reply
So everyone talks about how his understanding of sexuality is profound and denied out of prudish objections. What exactly are the sexual truths he speaks of?
>>
Hugh Sobberchitch - Sat, 24 Dec 2016 19:04:11 EST ID:dm41dPYY No.207504 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207503
Idk frood but ill try. Penis envy. People wanna fucl their parents
>>
Phoebe Semmlestog - Mon, 26 Dec 2016 22:50:56 EST ID:DLzNkYBL No.207509 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207503
Mainly that every kind of volitional behavior and particularly subconscious impulses arise from sublimated or not so sublimated sexual/libidinal desires. Even phenomena so abstract as culture itself arise from the need to constrict and control the drive to obtain what one desires, and that these emerge from the sexual impulse because this is the only 'abstract' drive unlike the need for food, sleep, etc.
It's much more detailed than that, but that's the gist.
>>
Walter Brerringcocke - Tue, 27 Dec 2016 05:04:53 EST ID:fRXySuYb No.207513 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207509
Sounds sort of like circular logic. I'm not necessarily arguing against it or that he is wrong but it seems like Solipsism, cool idea to think about but it isn't falsifiable so how can it be proven?

I could relate the fact that I walk slightly different from everyone else to sex if I wanted to get really contrived. I dunno mayne. Not saying it is wrong at all, I think he is on to something but how can it be a good hypothesis if it relies on the subconscious or a part of the brain that we can't access in an objective and scientific manner?
>>
Phoebe Semmlestog - Tue, 27 Dec 2016 13:29:32 EST ID:DLzNkYBL No.207514 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207513
I don't see how it's circular at all. A circular argument requires the conclusion to be contained within the premise.
The fact that you walk differently from others IS due to re-directed libidinal impulses, under Freud's theory (unless it's a physical condition.) Your attempt to actualize your ego by behaving in a different way from your peers is a way of signaling your uniqueness to mates -- that one is actually pretty cut and dry.

Moreover, the subconscious is in no way unamenable to empirical ('objective and scientific') analysis. The subconscious is merely the part of the mind which is held at a level of attention so low that it doesn't enter into our executive process, which is a relatively small neural network. All subconscious brain activity occurs with the exact same kind of neuronal activity that conscious activity does, and in fact occurs in a vastly larger degree, so it is as directly susceptible to empirical investigation as everything else about the brain/mind.


Virtue signalling the internet and why does it happen like this? by David Fuckingford - Wed, 07 Dec 2016 02:26:20 EST ID:2IPvcf8v No.207417 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1481095580362.gif -(2675344B / 2.55MB, 200x170) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 2675344
There's been a lot more of people inserting politics into everything the last few years on the internet. And I don't care where you stand on the spectrum, right wing/ left wing whatever, its that this seems to find its way to every little corner now. With the election going on, you could expect a serious amount of shit flinging on various corners of the internet. That's normal. What isn't normal is how politicizised, how idealism central/focused every little corner of everything is getting lately.

There's become a contingent of people floating aroud the internet who immediately signal to their virtue whenever confronted with anything that they don't like. Its either gas them or, some new age political jargon with a bunch of made up word (they both suck) . Why is this young generation so focused on inserting politics into everything? I know idealism being a part of everything isn't something entirely new, but the way that its going on the internet now is a lot diffrent than things where going 10 years ago. People seem more likely to ally themselves with extremes instead of just tolerating and moving along. How did the internet become so much more socially concerned in the last ten years?

What can be done to combat virtue signalling? I feel like its poor form, but it seems to be getting more popular with people on both sides of the isle. Why does everyone seem to be getting more and more extreme in the last couple years (just take a look at something stupid like facebook or the youtube comments section, shits getting more virulent). ? In 2000 the internet was so damned exciting chat rooms and forums In 2006 I could talk to cool people about anything and laugh about stuff. In 2016 people quickly espoused their values to me repeatedly. Where did it all happen ?
27 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Cedric Bindlefone - Mon, 19 Dec 2016 20:35:28 EST ID:0aDGMcny No.207492 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207491
Nope, just know the consequences of getting on the wrong side of people on the internet especially in my profession. Why on earth would I want any kind of paper trail linking my real identity and my anon chan identity?
>>
Vehk !7HYGxe5v5c - Tue, 20 Dec 2016 07:58:52 EST ID:VD5wTDNK No.207493 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207421

This is a retarded opinion. The internet has absolutely nothing to do with it. I honestly can't stand the constant "tsk tsk people can't control their behaviour, it's the internet framing the discourse" pseudointellectual garbage. People were more political than they are now in the first half of the 20th century and that had nothing to do with the methods of communication and everything to do with the unique political situation of the time. Class contradictions grow and subsume when capitalism faces new challenges. People were apolitical because from the 90s to mid thousands, there were no major political polarizations beside the Iraq war. Now were living in a world barely imaginable to us 5 years ago, with all of our idealistic stakes in the status quo smashed and our dreams fettered. Ideology is the product of a broken center, not Facebook shitposting groups.
>>
Cedric Bindlefone - Tue, 20 Dec 2016 17:08:35 EST ID:0aDGMcny No.207494 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207493
But OP's question was what is it about this time that makes it different? Yes, there have been times of greater or lesser political involvement in the past, and sure, by definition the fact that there's radicalization means the center has been abandoned. But why? How did the center get broken? What caused people to gravitate toward more extreme ideology? Surely you're not suggesting that communication technology has no effect on how or what people communicate?
>>
Fucking Fickledock - Tue, 20 Dec 2016 23:26:07 EST ID:AzrYc36y No.207495 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207481
> trying to make them more inclusive by relying on rabid internet hate mobs who have nothing better to do than whine when a gay person is depicted in a game or a woman is depicted with realistic proportions.

This is a bit of a disingenuous take of their side, even though I agree the anti-censorship can get too overzealous.

It's a really blurry issue, but what it comes down to is that anybody should have the right to do what they want with their creative works, even if it means doing things I don't agree to, including self-censorship. If it's something that came from the government, then yeah, I'd be opposed to it. But a lot of these sort of decisions are just business people doing what they think will make them the most money without ruffling feathers of whatever region they're trying to sell. I think a lot of these decisions are pretty superfluous since anybody who is offended by Mika's ass will most likely not play something like Street Fighter that is known for its over-the-top characters. But usually these decisions don't affect the gameplay itself. I'm aware of the Fire Emblem Fates situation but I never played that so I don't know.

There is a good point to be argued about this sort of thing and whether or not self-censorship is truly censorship if they are not being pressured by government, and whether or not attempting to appeal to regional cultures by changing a creative product can be considered censorship even if it's done with the consent of the creators, but it's a nuanced one that can't be found when people on all sides are shouting over each other.

Is it really censorship, or just plain old pandering?
>>
Phyllis Poffingwater - Sun, 25 Dec 2016 00:02:19 EST ID:iAquTtgI No.207505 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207492
Nothing has ever happened to a game dev online that were actually making real games.


Privilege by James Harringwill - Sun, 09 Oct 2016 04:49:29 EST ID:2PqYhULY No.206995 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1476002969182.jpg -(51829B / 50.61KB, 1200x739) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 51829
In my sociology class last week, we all lined up and took steps forward or back based on whether or not our answer to a question was privileged or not. I took the most steps forward, being a tall white male of middle class origin.
What do you think of this exercise? Has your privilege ever been checked?
100 posts and 10 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Frederick Toothall - Sun, 11 Dec 2016 01:35:34 EST ID:0aDGMcny No.207444 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207436
I see where you're coming from, and it does make sense in a certain way. I also am glad one thing we've removed from the discussion is the issue of the way people utilize the privilege concept. Some progressives take it too far, drink their own kool-aid and generate new oppression, some conservatives use fear of the concept, drink their own kool-aid, and generate new oppression, but neither of those facts bear on the concept which we can analyze separately. But here are some additional things I'd like you to consider:

Since we've kind of drilled past privilege into looking at social stratification itself, I have to ask: do you believe that the world is a zero-sum game? By that I mean do you think that there is always only a set amount of 'goodness,' value, utility, whatever you want to call it about the world, and that all possible social conditions merely re-arrange the location of those values in a way that doesn't change the total?
Alternatively, do you think it's possible that some arrangements of society have more or less total value than others?

Your hobo $1 scenario makes sense if the world is a zero-sum game. If being poor is bad, and having wealth is bad, then gaining or losing wealth does not alter the value of one's experience so it's credible to argue that there is no reason to do it.

Personally, I don't see the world as a zero-sum game. The value of society is epi-phenomenal, it is something that is more than the sum of its parts. Moving wealth from the wealthy to the poor doesn't merely switch who plays the role of wealthy and poor. If done correctly it can actually lift up the part of the equation that was down before while the other remains up, and thus the whole is improved.

This has actually happened across time, if you look at the growth of the total GDP of the whole planet across history. At any moment in history, there is definite and constraining scarcity, so little can be done but shift around the existing oppression tokens, perhaps improving the whole incrementally. But the long term consequences of value shifting around between different actors actually leads to gross improvements in conditions. Even assuming all the technological advances that could've happened otherwise still happened, if only the people who had money and power in 1066 (or an equivalent proportion per capita) were the ones to have money and power now, the total GDP of the world would be a tithe of what it is now, because the mere friction of that value changing hands, both in the direct form of capital and the subtle form of power and privilege spreads the 'heat' of value throughout the medium.

To get out of the abstract into the specific; yeah, if someone ham-fistedly tries to call someone out on privilege and is an ass and just makes a scene, probably all they've done is increase the total oppression in the world, because they made the other person feel oppressed and did nothing to minimize the initial offense. Zero-sum game (actually potentially negative-sum.) But if it is done with finesse, the 'offending' person might actually come to understand how not to be as oppressive while not feeling personally slighted themselves, and then the whole actually benefits -- positive-sum game.

As for the particular of Africa, that's a bit of a different ball of wax. Trying to 'fix' people by forcing them to become a mirror of yourself is of course the classic 'White Man's Burden.' It is particularly disastrous in Africa, where merely trying to copy Western style civilization onto African civilization is fraught with problems (as a simple example, Western style ultra-concentrated urban planning is a really fucking bad idea in a continent ravaged by malaria.)
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Ian Gevingman - Wed, 14 Dec 2016 23:06:29 EST ID:kunpsrz1 No.207456 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207444

We'll we've been chugging along at this for a while and I have enjoyed it. I'll try to cut to the root of where i'm coming from.

Is the world zero-sum?

For me I think it is subjectively zero-sum, and it is in the subjective world that people live. A poor hobo in today's world would be quite well off in 2000 BCE, yet they don't carry themselves around like kings. They are downtrodden, why? Because their relative wealth is terrible. So I think the world is generally zero-sum until we fix the resource scarcity problem, because otherwise we are just moving relative wealth around. Objectively speaking America's poor is in decent shape compared to Zambia's poor, etc. I'm also not sold (yet) that the world would be better off without suffering, as suffering seems to serve as a great inventive/creative impetuous. But that's for another time.

To the end point you made about people 'asking' for money, I think there needs to be a distinction made here between the deserving poor and undeserving poor. People can ask for money without needing money, are people morally obligated to give cash to any obnoxious child who wants to spend $7 on pokemon cards? This can circle down the drain of the 'argument against reason' thing we did earlier so i'll stop there.

But more importantly, how much money is 'enough?' And to bring it back to the oppression framework, what state of non-societal oppression is enough to say we're done? Where is the objective standard? There really isn't one, the left is satisfied with just saying its there, not enough to say there is an end game, we can double back here to my point earlier about their end game sucking but like you say, different people have different arguments. Even though I believe other political ideologies (communists; workers controlling the means of production and run around 'crushing' bourgeoisie sympathizers) do have objective, reasonable end games. I have an end game with respect to the privilege/oppression framework, and its just based on the bullying/harassment relationship so I don't need to introduce this added layer (as heinous as it is).

The problem with cha…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Thomas Crunkinstire - Thu, 15 Dec 2016 22:23:53 EST ID:0aDGMcny No.207462 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207456
I don't think there is an end-game to politics and society, in general. I think any seemingly stable-state social structure is just biding its time to death. That merely to the point of saying there is no objective standard for saying when we are done futzing with society. Like you point out, even after a great advancement, eventually everyone settles down to seeing what is as the status quo and coming up with new things to gripe about. So every kind of societal process, whether it's managing oppression and privilege, cultural attitudes, political attitudes, whatever, will always be constantly in a state of flux, because even if it reaches what on the surface might be a stable state, human nature will cause it to destabilize again into new polarities.

So there is no end game. We will always be dealing with all the shit we are dealing with now, much like how the shit we are dealing with now is just a fancy re-hash of the same shit we have always been dealing with. But, that doesn't mean we can stop working on it (it is that suffering that drives us forward as you mention, which we carry within ourselves as much as comes at us from outside) or that we have to agree on what is a good final state to work toward some state.

We will never all agree on a single standard of life as good, that's blatantly impossible, but even so we can't throw up our hands and give up the social experiment. This is not just applying to charity, but to all kinds of social change.

Lastly, on the subject of the 'minimum bar' of standard of life, I don't think it's such an unusual concept that as technology advances, and the total of possible goods people can experience increases, the median and therefore also the minimum amount of necessary goods shifted with it. In Ancient Greece a bed was considered a luxury item. Fifteen years ago cell phones were considered luxury items, and now they are considered a necessity. That's just a feature of technological advancement, you can't get away from the rising bar, and it has nothing to do with people becoming unreasonable in their demands and everything to do with technology's impact on society.
In ancient greece, a bolt of…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Shit Gimmerwell - Fri, 23 Dec 2016 04:50:49 EST ID:U1j3ZEZp No.207498 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I liked it better when it was called guilt-tripping
I wonder what'll happen when they realize it's fruitless. Riots?
>>
Shit Gecklekit - Fri, 13 Jan 2017 06:49:37 EST ID:XOqZWzTC No.207577 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I bet all the girls in class thought about having your baby that day. Seriously.


John Dewey / Ulrich Beck parallels by Basil Wucklemotch - Thu, 15 Dec 2016 00:29:41 EST ID:ftwgE2AJ No.207457 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1481779781569.jpg -(46103B / 45.02KB, 593x240) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 46103
TL;DR: Links or suggestions for quick resources I can use to compare John Dewey to Ulrich Beck

So, basically, I have been a lazy piece of shit and now I have about a day and a half to finish this assignment on similarities and differences between John Dewey's pragmatism and Ulrich Beck's Theory of Reflexive Modernisation, of about 15 pages, and all I have so far is the introduction and a bunch of notes. So I would very much appreciate some input, or resources with the same subject that I can work with.

I did Google around a bit, and I found some interesting papers like a Lecture given by Beck at Harvard University, where he mentioned Dewey several times (didn't read it yet though), and a paper by Bruno Latour, where he mainly compares his theory to Beck's, and only mentions Dewey in passing.
>>
Thomas Crunkinstire - Thu, 15 Dec 2016 19:39:40 EST ID:0aDGMcny No.207459 Ignore Report Quick Reply
/pss/ is not going to do your paper for you, and I doubt anyone here has specific enough knowledge on the similarities between these two you're trying to look at to really help you out anyway.
Read the sources you already have and start making shit up, at 15 pages in a day and a half you don't have time to wait around for people to come up with stuff here.


Election by Charlotte Lightshaw - Fri, 11 Nov 2016 14:10:42 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207192 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1478891442579.jpg -(467182B / 456.23KB, 1180x842) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 467182
Philosophize about the Trump/Clinton election and the future of the USA.

I want to hear pros/cons, I want to hear different ways of viewing this, I want to hear pretty much anything that isn't fucking petty ass rhetoric from CNN or FOX.
47 posts and 5 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Charlotte Siddlehall - Mon, 05 Dec 2016 09:51:45 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207394 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Case and point; while Trump and the majority of his supporters valiantly preach and practice debate over fighting and peace over violence, the very few supporters who do preach violence and fighting are the ones positioned on the front pages of liberal news outlets. And then fanatical liberals create fake accounts and fake pictures/videos/screenshots of 'Trump supporters' and spread that shit like wildfire through social media.

There's a storm of propaganda gripping the USA, but luckily those of us from the left/center/right who realize just how much bullshit there is out there can usually band together in agreement that these things and the bullshit they produce is cancerous to society, and we all stand unified against it, yet our own peers and allies are already die-hard pawns who resent and oppose us for our stances, they regard us as 'enemies' because that's what their propaganda tells them to do.
>>
Simon Mabbleville - Mon, 05 Dec 2016 17:56:44 EST ID:0aDGMcny No.207399 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207394
Well that's the problem with propaganda. No body likes it, but everyone uses it, and especially if you aren't willing to debate an issue over the accepted facts, you're left with no recourse but to deny those facts and thus start creating propaganda.
Propaganda is probably an intractable property of a civilization made of subjective entities. Unless everyone was omniscient, it will always be the case that most of the things that happen you won't be able to experience first hand and will thus have to rely on believing someone else's account, and as long as your belief or disbelief has tangible consequences for someone else, there will be an incentive to get you to believe or disbelieve things independently of what is actually true.
>>
Lillian Duckhall - Mon, 05 Dec 2016 22:11:03 EST ID:Id5quEqH No.207401 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1480993863606.jpg -(52118B / 50.90KB, 394x460) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>207393

Honestly, centrists can easily be more dangerous in my opinion because they basically soften people to the more radical ideas of the farther end of the spectrum that they otherwise would not accept. In a lot of ways the Nazis and the Bolsheviks were both centrist with respect to their own political environments. While the Nazis are sometimes categorized as right wing, this is only because they were anti-communist. The Bolsheviks too made a little changes to the original communist program to accommodate for less far left elements within society.

Often times, it is rarely the radicals on either side who take power or keep power for very long because their ideologies by literal definition are fringe and hard for the average person to accept or get accustomed to. It is usually those groups or leaders who can appeal to most if not all the competing elements of a given society, marginalizing radical minorities and bringing in people who are sitting on the fence and skeptical towards all views or attracted to select aspects of them all that they can't reasonably choose one.

If a society is thus sick in that spiritual sense, than the centrists, rather than embodying the best of traits, can easily embody the worst traits of their societies and become accepted only because they appeal to the least common denominator. This is more dangerous especially in democracies where there's no institutional buffer of "higher culture" or "higher values" that can potentially cancel out the more dark and twisted desires of the masses.
>>
Angus Denderteck - Wed, 07 Dec 2016 19:43:00 EST ID:fk7xMmwU No.207425 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207393
Right-wing populism is not centrist. There is no value in centrism, depending on what way you are defining it; it either muddies the water by bringing people together under an overly broad, simplified label purely due to the fact that they are not Stalinists and neo-nazis despite how different their views are (which seems to be the way you are using the term) or it is a term that propagates horseshoe theory, glorifies a lack of strong principles and embraces compromise and "bi-partisanship".

Not being a stormfag does not make one centrist and not being a commie doesn't make one centrist. The current movement going on in Europe and America is not centrist; it is right-wing. There is nothing wrong with not being centrist.
>>
Hamilton Clillystock - Thu, 08 Dec 2016 15:08:04 EST ID:2IPvcf8v No.207427 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Well it took me a few to read through this whole thread, pretty enjoyable. Especially the stuff about trans humanism. I know that people are going to disagree with me on this, but I think that the importance of the president is getting massively oversold here. The things that trumps election mean? (Just some basic ones).

The american people are focused more on jobs, more on wealth, more on a basic identity. Its easy to oversell this sort of thing, cause the fringe of people who connect with some basic nationalism centric ideas can be out there. But what trump promised was more directly in relationship to people. That's why he won. Talking about job, national identity, that's a lot more over aching than hillarys ideas that she'd just be a better statesman. And while the mainstream media tried to sell that narrative hard, it didn't quite hit home. The msms influence is gone.

Now I know there's some definite panic. And I'd like to try and dissuade that. The basic value of democracy is that it allows things to swing, back and forth. The push goes from americas place in the world to its problems at home, from liberal to conservative. Nothing major and horrible is going to come out of this, its all just the shifting back in one direction for awhile. The us has headed in the direction of a more left leaning/ global agenda for awhile, now it'll be more nationalistic/right leaning for awhile. Its all part of the beauty of the system. And this doesn't mean collapse, quite the contrary it means that the ebb and flow is continuing to work, that's the point.

As easy as it is to say you live in times of major collapse, its quite unlikely. With global institutions like the un, the vested intrests of big companies, there's a lot of things to prop up the current system in place. And while there's going to be a bubble somewhere far off in the future that bursts? It's not going to be the dramatic catastrophic sort of thing, not for a long time. And not quite in your lifetime. By the time that even things like climate change start to get serious enough, the technology level to combat these things may likely advance enough to handle them. You live in a world of big mone…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.


Privileging of Psychology by Molly Nimblemedging - Tue, 18 Oct 2016 08:20:15 EST ID:7Jz0O/c2 No.207076 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1476793215427.jpg -(213604B / 208.60KB, 1600x1200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 213604
I dislike how much my friends rely on therapy and medication- how they privilege psychological narratives (by that i mean cognitive-behavioural therapy, trait theory, behaviourism, all the things a therapist might use to fit an existing construct over your behaviour and treat it accordingly) over alternative narratives of mental and emotional health. It always feels like such a touchy subject also, like somebody might be offended if i criticise the help they are getting- "i deserve happiness as much as everyone else" - and they just buy into and allow themselves to be psychologised and accept the dominant narrative because they want help.

I don't mean alternative like new-age oil treatment and hippie festivals or whatever, just different ways of looking at "mental health", whether they are sociological or philosophical perspectives or whatever else that i feel make a stronger argument.
13 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Barnaby Surringdale - Fri, 02 Dec 2016 17:41:11 EST ID:BKJX7E+7 No.207369 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1480718471125.jpg -(88049B / 85.99KB, 568x410) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>207359

Private vs universal health care seems to me to be a catch-20 though. Like, the pharma of the US earn shit-tons of money thanks to the free market, which means they can spend more on development of needed and useful drugs Within the market context of course. My country have universal health care, but still the government spend a shit ton of money to buy US medicine.

At the same time, you'd think they'd care more about the health of people if the companies involved where not following the profit motive. Now America is an extreme example on the other end of this spectrum compared to social medicine, but still. I personally think this is a false line of reasoning. Even state-owned operations have to think about budget. So they have a limited amount of money to spend on buying/developing treatment and drugs. If the leaders are good statesmen then of course they're gonna focus on what's best when it comes to spending vs social profit Meaning eventual resulting taxes, as a healthy population is a productive population of the treatment/drugs.

In any case dude American health-care is fucked up beyond relief. That doesn't mean that my stinking European health care is much better. But at least we don't have to deal with doctors pushing some "recognized" drug because the pharma industry pays them to wtf.
>>
Charlotte Siddlehall - Mon, 05 Dec 2016 09:42:05 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207392 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207369
It doesn't have to be so fucked up, though. When I studied insurance back in college, I learned that the government has caps on the kinds of margins you can get from insurance premiums, meaning that insurance can only profit so much. Now, normally I'm completely opposed to things like this, but the point of applying this to the insurance industry was to make sure that insurance was directed toward insuring the country's well-being rather than profiting from the country's problems. The Health Care industry is the opposite, though; they profit immensely off of poor health and health issues as well as pharmaceutical necessity/addiction, so much so that their incentivized to create perpetual victims of health problems rather than permanently/efficiently treating people, and because of this we have immense problems in the pharmaceutical industry. I think the government should have never even fucking attempted universal health care and instead simply tried to actually solve our health care problems by finding a way to actually incentivize health care providers to look into keeping people healthy and to penalize them for requiring constant use of pharmaceuticals and such (unless its absolutely necessary like in my case where I'd lose my colon without my regular dose of biological chemotherapy).
>>
Simon Mabbleville - Mon, 05 Dec 2016 17:59:57 EST ID:0aDGMcny No.207400 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207392
>>. I think the government should have never even fucking attempted universal health care and instead simply tried to actually solve our health care problems by finding a way to actually incentivize health care providers to look into keeping people health
That's a nice sentiment, but I don't know if it could ever pan out in reality. It would be basically asking the medical industry to subsidize the health of the whole nation. There's no profit in keeping people healthy, while there's lot of profit in keeping people sick, so unless the medical industry was run as a not-for-profit or the government gave insurance companies some kind of kick-back when people stay healthy, there would be no motive for them to do this.
>>
Nell Duckleforth - Tue, 06 Dec 2016 11:26:06 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207408 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207400
That's exactly what I'm talking about. I'm talking about bonus money being given to insurance companies and doctors who work together to keep a massive amount of people perfectly healthy. I'm talking about fines directed at insurance companies and medical practices that can't help/fix problems with health that aren't like genetic. I'm talking about incentives being given to pharmaceuticals that pressure pharmaceuticals to not have many people depending on them regularly.

I think that sort of set-up could have done a world of good compared to Obamacare, which didn't really do anything besides increase insurance costs everywhere while also insuring an additional like 1 million people. Obama keeps claiming 20 million but the fact of the matter is those people were going to buy insurance whether or not Obamacare existed. Obama sure likes to play with numbers so that he looks more impressive. One of the main reasons I'm so disenfranchised with the Democrats as a whole is because they always fall back on numbers to defend their actions, but when you look into the numbers you realize they're literally all fake.
>>
Cornelius Blecklenudge - Tue, 06 Dec 2016 16:01:49 EST ID:0aDGMcny No.207412 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207408
Well, if that could actually be enacted, it would be great. Good luck getting them to go along with it though, and I wonder how much higher the final price tag would be.

A lot of people got insurance who wouldn't have otherwise, I know quite a few personally, and that's only looking at the universal mandate. Things like the provisions of pre-existing conditions (which, thankfully, is immune in the Senate) actually were the most significant thing and did a world of good.
Context: my gf couldn't get insurance before ACA because of a pre-existing condition. Because the condition is so rare, the drug for it costs 20K a dose, once per month, and without it eventually she would die. ACA allowed her to get insurance and now (most) of that cost is covered. If ACA were to go wholesale, including the pre-existing condition provision, she would be again looking forward to death sometime in her 20s)


Media, Representation, and the Role of Entertainment by Archie Grandwater - Tue, 22 Nov 2016 22:07:59 EST ID:TCWxLxYH No.207297 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1479870479124.jpg -(21638B / 21.13KB, 275x223) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 21638
I think this is the right board for this.

As someone who is from a minority group, I am always bothered about how the discourse of how my own group is represented in any media. It always felt like it was too simplified. I understand the basics of it--wanting more minority characters in roles and to not be tokenized. But as someone who could be considered an outcast of their own group I always looked at it in a different way. I couldn't honestly say that someone like a black character on a popular primetime show could be representative of me. I can't even say they are a representative of a group. We may share some things like how we look, but that's really it. It kinda bothered me that it seemed like how representation is discussed seems more on how a person looks.

But then I was doing some writing and then realized something. What if all this talk about representation isn't about a person or even a group, or even a group's ideals. But it's more about validating the group's supposed ideals?

So to get back to entertainment. What is entertainment's role to the people? Is it to challenge them? Is it to validate their ideals? Does anybody know what I'm actually talking about, because I don't think I am.
2 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Phoebe Wossleway - Wed, 23 Nov 2016 08:39:40 EST ID:iAquTtgI No.207301 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Unless it needs to be someone else just cast white guys, no need to politicize everything.
>>
Phoebe Trotville - Wed, 23 Nov 2016 17:16:57 EST ID:0aDGMcny No.207304 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207300
That's just the nature of giving one's opinion. When one is giving one's opinion, one is speaking over someone whose opinion is not being given. There's no way out of that. It doesn't matter if it's a minority group or the majority group, it's just a fact of signal processing quite frankly. In a majority group, who gets to decide what that majorities story is, when certainly there are minorities within that majority who would disagree, or even someone who is in all the same categories as the person speaking, but disagrees with what they're saying for any number of reasons? There's no way to say any one story is more valid than another, they're all first hand accounts, the most we can analyze is the consequences of stories, but all that's still irrelevant.
The only way anyone's story can get out, no matter how you want to characterize where that story is coming from, is by telling it. And obviously, no matter what other groups that storyteller shares with other people, some people in those groups aren't going to agree with the story for various reasons. It's an inescapable reality arising from the fact that we are subjective entities living in a shared environment, and there is no way around it. For the same reason, it's not a good argument against allowing minorities to tell their stories.

>>207301
Uhh, don't you think forcing every rando in a movie to be someone who is exactly like you is politicizing it?
>>
Thomas Misslewire - Wed, 23 Nov 2016 19:27:02 EST ID:iAquTtgI No.207306 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207304
I didn't say anything about forcing people to do anything. And how is it politicizing?
>>
Frederick Bledgedure - Wed, 23 Nov 2016 23:19:40 EST ID:0aDGMcny No.207307 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207306
You said 'just cast white guys' as in 'only cast white guys' which means don't hire from the pool of people who are qualified, but hire from the pool of white guys. Since that's not what happens naturally, if you wanted that to happen, that's forcing it.
>>how is it politicizing?
You already introduced the notion that to not include 'just white guys' was 'politicizing everything' and the inverse must be political if that's political, so you tell me?
>>
Lillian Gavingdock - Wed, 30 Nov 2016 17:23:45 EST ID:YIHJM4pq No.207346 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207297
Mawneeh


Eastern & Oriental Philosophy by Graham Bicklenotch - Mon, 05 Sep 2016 18:51:55 EST ID:di4PvVP1 No.206706 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1473115915971.png -(4451174B / 4.24MB, 1500x1907) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 4451174
Anyone got any good recommendations on Eastern/Oriental philosophers & works??
54 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Hedda Hoffingbit - Wed, 16 Nov 2016 15:00:29 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207266 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207265
I hope you know you're doing exactly what everyone else was just complaining about. It doesn't matter which side of the argument you're on, the argument is over because it wasn't philosophical, it was just bickering.
>>
Archie Simbleman - Thu, 17 Nov 2016 18:00:29 EST ID:4do4rcf2 No.207274 Ignore Report Quick Reply
threads like this are why i love this board
>>
Priscilla Blazzlehitch - Sun, 27 Nov 2016 00:14:37 EST ID:kxpuHo+8 No.207319 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Holy crap this thread, only read 1/4 of the way down, but damn guys, damn... Arguments are fun right?

At the risk of inciting another argument, I'd recommend Siddhartha by hermann hesse. Simple outline of a guy's path to enlightenment.

Geez though guys, why we always arguing?
>>
Lillian Fecklenadge - Sun, 27 Nov 2016 02:05:59 EST ID:0aDGMcny No.207320 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207319
HOW DARE YOU RECOMMEND SIDDHARTHA ASDFEGIGHIEWGRRE~!!!1!
jk
>>
Shitting Foddlechine - Mon, 28 Nov 2016 10:14:08 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207323 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207319
>a guy
That guy's Buddha, dude, lol.

But yes, Siddhartha's story is an epic one.


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