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


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
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
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
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
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
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

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
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
> 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
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
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

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
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
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.

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
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.

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
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
>>. 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
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
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
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.

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
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
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

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
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
Shitting Foddlechine - Mon, 28 Nov 2016 10:14:08 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207323 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>a guy
That guy's Buddha, dude, lol.

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

Secret Societies by Hedda Mobbersodge - Thu, 03 Nov 2016 00:35:55 EST ID:jjNLJE8u No.207142 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1478147755506.png -(381662B / 372.72KB, 1024x682) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 381662
I just wanted to talk about what you guys thought about secret societies. Can a large shadow organization be stable and running as well as still stay out of sight from the public eye
37 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Graham Huffingnere - Wed, 16 Nov 2016 18:06:34 EST ID:0aDGMcny No.207267 Ignore Report Quick Reply
On MGS: *brofist*
On George Soros/ Conspiracy theories:
The thing about conspiracy theories is that they are almost always organized around a kernel of truth (like all mythology) but that due to 1. the inherent lack of information which lets you fill in the gaps in a purely Rorschach test kind of way 2. the fact that of the people who are actively very interested in conspiracy theories, a larger percentage than in the normal population are going to have mental illness and thus will surround any given conspiracy theory with misinformation (this is not to say that you have to be crazy to believe in conspiracy theories, but that if you are certain kinds of crazy, you will almost certainly believe in them) the true kernel about any given conspiracy is going to be distorted through the lens of some claims that are merely false guesses and some claims that are truly outlandish and delusional.
It's important to be able to analyze all three components separately (i.e. the delusional claims, the misinformed claims, and the root of the controversy)
I think the most telling example of this 'evolution' of conspiracy theory is the claim of there being or being a plan to create a NWO. People get all hyped when any bit of evidence about it falls through the cracks, go insane over trying to convince people that this is happening, that the global elites are trying to create a unified world society. Thing about it is...that's totally true, and if you ask anybody they will admit it. Ever since the advent of the modern nation-state and especially since WWII, global political, financial, scientific and cultural elites have been trying to bring the whole world together under a unified system of law and order with the stated purpose of preventing a World War from ever happening again.
That fact, half in the open and half submerged in the collective unconscious, gets distorted and twisted in the conspiracy theorist's mind into assuming there is an enemy behind every corner. They then quickly make value judgements about others intentions (Soros contributing to BLM must be because he is trying to create a state of global chaos, not because he is in philanthrophy circles and it's a popular …
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Nell Farringtane - Thu, 17 Nov 2016 15:01:41 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207273 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Amen to all that.
As for Soros and BLM, well, he did actually pay people to protest like 24/7. Like it bothers people that months and months of protest were bought and paid for rather than actual protests; people call it 'astro-turfing' as opposed to 'grass-roots'.

But also, so what'd you think of MGS4 and 5? Personally, I thought the story of 4 was epic, but 5 had sweeter and smoother gameplay. That being said, I'm upset you never had the ability to call in friendly AI soldiers decked out in specific gear. 5 had a cool story, too, but I mean the story was unfinished and there's like unfinished cutscene locked away in the game that you can't even reach. Why the fuck did Konami have to sour their relationship with Kojima, their greatest asset?

But yeah, as for MGS2, I was really confused by the Colonel's speech at the end of the game, like I thought it was techno-babble when I was just a boy playing the game, but now that I'm an adult and I went back and re-watched a lot of the cutscenes in that game, I see exactly what they were talking about, like to the letter. Kojima's view of the internet and how it works was incredbly accurate at the time and he talked about things it seemed like no one was talking about or noticing at that time in history. Kind of like how Serial Experiments Lain does the exact same thing, except even more impressively they did it in like 1998 where as MGS2 was like 2001.
Archie Dezzlehood - Thu, 17 Nov 2016 18:56:15 EST ID:0aDGMcny No.207276 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Before the haters come in and shut down the MGS circlejerk: personally MGS4 is my favorite game in terms of the plot, it is the pinnacle of the over-wrought hyper-convoluted Japanese-style storytelling that propelled MGS to the stratosphere. MGS5 is undeniably a superior game in terms of all gameplay mechanics...but the story is genuinely weak sauce, and a large part of that is that it's literally about ~30% of the complete game, reworked to look like it's finished. If you're up on this stuff I'm sure you know all about the Kojima/Konami fallout, it honestly had a lot to do with both of them reacting from their own perspective to seismic shifts in the game industry but wanting to go different directions (mainly the emergence of freemium and service based games.) As a dev myself I appreciate what Kojima must have gone through -- but at the same time I'm pretty pissed that he had more time, more money, and a bigger team on MGS5 than MGS4, but wasn't able to give it a coherent story or even a complete gameplay arc, yet was able to fill it with useless shit like a 4 part audio mini-series on hamburgers. Yet I'm still out there hunting soldiers for my Mother Base like a...Boss ;)

As for the MGS2 philosophy bits, yeah the first time you play it as the 4th wall breaks down you really don't have any idea whats going on, but it's actually amazingly well structured. I think this kind of 'reality breakdown' sequence is something that Japanese media does uniquely well (Evangelion and Lain are indeed the ultimate examples of this, we must be cut from the same media cloth) and, since we're in the secret societies thread, I will say that all three draw heavily on Qabalistic inspiration to inform these sequences. And yeah, the stuff about information control, managing the internet, memes, is totally prophetic for today (although even back then futurists saw it coming, I mean if you want to know about today Gibson's Neuromancer will still tell you pretty much everything you want to know) in fact it was kind of directly prophetic -- they had to change the New York attack sequence in between the time they finished it and the time they released it, because 9/11…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Jarvis Clemmerfield - Thu, 24 Nov 2016 07:51:40 EST ID:Ry/UiP1R No.207310 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The only thing a secret society needs to function is for all the interests of the member's of the society to align. Also, there needn't be a large, unified society where everyone is a member and everyone conspires together and shares in some master plan for the same practical effects as a conspiratorial secret society. It just happens on a smaller scale. Because the groups of people involved are small and interconnected (think billionaires) there is a high amount of interconnectivity within the entire group. An idea can be floated that takes ahold of the entire group and/or is debated within the group without any sort of formal meetings. The ideas simply spread in the normal virus-like way they do. The only difference is that they all have similar self interests and upbrings, and there are much less of them so the group is more unified than the general public. They are also in a position of great power within our society and actually do have the means to influence the country, unlike normal people.

I think Caroline might have been on to something with her cabal theory >>207150 because certainly these groups would be like little social circles of the immensely wealthy and powerful and there would be some competition between them even though their interests too align.

Basically conspiracies exist they're just much less ordered and formal than most people imagine them to be.
Oliver Dombleson - Fri, 25 Nov 2016 18:20:34 EST ID:aEaeNBh+ No.207318 Ignore Report Quick Reply
You're skipping over the effect that all kinds of small little conspiracies have on each other.


Why do you think that so often (anonymous) whistleblowers leak information on organisations? Conflicts of interest.

Spirituality vs Religion by Edwin Buzzshaw - Wed, 17 Aug 2016 17:52:45 EST ID:G4Ws+Vkw No.206541 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1471470765273.jpg -(150556B / 147.03KB, 1072x804) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 150556
Was having a good conversation with my buddy the other night. I asked him if he thought that he was spiritual and he replied "yes because im very religious."

I explained that you don't have to be religious to be spiritual because they operate autonomously. Like you can meditate and not be religious.

So he asked me what being spiritual means. So here I am /pss/, what is spirituality?
10 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Nigel Doggledale - Mon, 19 Sep 2016 04:45:24 EST ID:t6MSIlrw No.206876 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I think its more of a difference between a recognized religious organization and an individual belief system that one has arrived on their own, which the "spiritual visitants who came to him in vision had never been seen before by any other; they were his particular familiars and protectors."

Its from that history post contrasting the shaman and the priest. >>56850
Nicholas Blankinpire - Thu, 22 Sep 2016 21:39:03 EST ID:yeARW8t0 No.206907 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Youre in luck op, I happen to be an expert in dogwhistle communication!

The translation of 'Im spiritual but not religious' is 'I suck dicks for a living and you can quote me on that'.

Have a good day!
Fucking Dessleville - Mon, 24 Oct 2016 03:04:11 EST ID:bIcAhZ7O No.207109 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Religion is the practical application of spirituality.
Ligio means to connect, or to link with. Re-ligio. To reconnect with that Supreme Personality. Due to the age we are in, the standards of what religion is has fallen. There is only one religion, and that is pure Love of God.

This world is comprised of the five elements, namely earth wind fire water and ether. Everything within the material universe is a transformation of these elements, but this only creates a gross, or physical substance. By no means is this actual spiritual substance. Actual spiritual understanding is beyond the perception of our material senses (sight, smell, touch, taste, hearing) and beyond the more subtle senses (mind, intelligence, and false ego). The Absolute Reality can't be achieved by mental speculation or knowledge. Only be devotional service, known as Bhakti-yoga can God be known.
James Blivingham - Tue, 22 Nov 2016 02:13:37 EST ID:7yzzAWz2 No.207289 Ignore Report Quick Reply
spirituality is connection with something greater than you (God or higher being/force)
religion is an organized connection with something greater than you (God or higher being/force)
philosophies contributing to the creator of everything; different ways of connecting to that creator
Martha Collermetch - Tue, 22 Nov 2016 15:44:28 EST ID:aEaeNBh+ No.207292 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>This world is comprised of the five elements

Actually, this world is mainly composed out of iron, oxygen, silicon, magnesium, sulfur, nickel, calcium, aluminium and some other random stuff.

Transweirdia by Eugene Pickbanks - Mon, 29 Aug 2016 22:41:17 EST ID:MkqaTAMB No.206655 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1472524877831.jpg -(77757B / 75.93KB, 640x400) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 77757
Hey, so I'm 25 and I tolerate and appreciate transgender people, but it's still kind of weird to me. For example, I saw a girl I went to highschool with post about her young child,

>>[Child] asked me today if she's a girl or a boy. I told her she gets to pick. I said I'm a girl, and daddy is a boy, but [friend] 's mommy [name3] is both. She asked if [friend] was a boy, and I told her I think he is right now, but lots of people change their minds later, so he may decide to be a girl eventually. She decided she wants to be like [name3] and be both.

So I'm like, OK, good for them - how does that make my life worse in any way? They and [name3] went on to clarify the distinction between sex and gender. I wouldn't say I'm transphobic; yet, at the same time, it's just weird feeling. Like, sex changes have occurred since the 1950s and trans people have existed possibly forever, but it still feels a little tumblr-y to me when I read stuff like this. It makes me cringe a little, reflexively. Does anyone else feel this way? Will it go away with time and exposure to trans life?

Also, it just feels odd to me that there are soooo many trans people coming out these days - but aren't they like, less than 2% of the population? (in the USA or world? not sure) I guess it just SEEMS like a lot because they aren't as afraid anymore.
76 posts and 10 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Hedda Siddlefield - Mon, 14 Nov 2016 18:04:30 EST ID:butFlNcj No.207240 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Actually I feel like trans people often exaggerate the gender stereotypes of the opposite gender
Edwin Bandlekan - Mon, 14 Nov 2016 18:33:36 EST ID:nrMZmil1 No.207242 Ignore Report Quick Reply

You feel like that because you don't know much about trans people.
Shitting Fessletot - Mon, 14 Nov 2016 18:58:21 EST ID:0aDGMcny No.207244 Ignore Report Quick Reply
"Actually I feel like weaboos often exaggerate the cultural stereotypes of Japanese people."
"Actually I feel like wiggers often exaggerate the cultural stereotypes of black people."
"Actually I feel like immigrants often exaggerate the cultural stereotypes of indigenous people."
Actually I feel like [any group that has to learn a culture to enter it] often exaggerates [the characteristics of that culture] while they are trying to learn them just like when you were a kid and exaggerated how cool you thought transforming robots were because it was new to you and you were still trying to get a hang of it. You don't still get as worked up about transforming robots now do you? (do you?)
Alice Hoppertene - Tue, 15 Nov 2016 07:41:27 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207246 Ignore Report Quick Reply
As someone who's friends with a lot of trans people, I agree that they exaggerate gender stereotypes and take gender more seriously than other people. The thing is, when they're young they think gender is like this big deal and that since they don't conform to the gender they're born into they rationalize it as that they were supposed to be the other gender, like they feel like they're supposed to be the sex of the gender stereotypes they most closely align with. Like, they want to be treated like the other people in the gender they most closely align with, is how it seems to me, and so they try to look like girls or even get operated on to be a girl. I find that a significant portion of trans people settle into their real gender once they're an adult, but then there are others that just feel sick of being the gender they are by the time they're an adult.
Reuben Hangerbury - Thu, 17 Nov 2016 13:41:41 EST ID:Ry/UiP1R No.207272 Ignore Report Quick Reply
This is what I think too and I was asked to leave my University's mandated diversity requirement class (related to gender studies of course) because I kept questioning the professor's assertions that biology has nothing to do with gender roles. It all seemed so ridiculous to me.

/pss/ by Zero-Suit Wario - Sat, 05 Nov 2016 11:55:46 EST ID:shmK6ute No.207158 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1478361346821.jpg -(13427B / 13.11KB, 299x300) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 13427
Where everyone thinks they're better than everyone else and every thread devolves into a pissing contest of who knows more.

Protip: Take some drugs, and no matter how retarded you think the other guy sounds, don't be a dick. Reasoned discourse is a collaborative effort. Whether we succeed or fail, we do so together.
10 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Albert Geshway - Fri, 11 Nov 2016 11:53:11 EST ID:FSAozKjO No.207190 Ignore Report Quick Reply

The Fool is definitely a pompous blowhard buffoon, but there are plenty of brilliant people who hold nuanced views that could be described as "religious." There's a lot more to it than the shit you see in a backwater baptist church in the southern US or milquetoast East Coast Catholics or whoever.

Posts like these are part of the problem described in the OP. Don't just piss in the water we're swimming in.
Barnaby Chugglewack - Fri, 11 Nov 2016 12:35:33 EST ID:aEaeNBh+ No.207191 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Well, if we were actually talking about brilliant people, and not some tripfag who pretends to be all smart on /pss/ and then completely autistically sperges out on /tinfoil/ and /spooky/ maybe I would have made a more nuanced post.

But The Fool is a fool and he doesn't deserve a nuanced post.
Charlotte Lightshaw - Fri, 11 Nov 2016 14:23:02 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207195 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>I hate people who contribute to this board with philosophies I consider too fantastic to be realistic.
At least they fucking contribute.
Hedda Girryhall - Fri, 11 Nov 2016 19:30:20 EST ID:FSAozKjO No.207217 Ignore Report Quick Reply


It's just drivel, whichever way you meant that word

And yeah can we talk about actual philosophy now
Archie Simbleman - Thu, 17 Nov 2016 18:05:24 EST ID:4do4rcf2 No.207275 Ignore Report Quick Reply
tfw OP ironically feels he's too good for discussion nb

<<Last Pages Next>>
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Report Post
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.