Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists


How to Abolish the Police: Lessons from Rojava

View Thread Reply
- Wed, 03 Jun 2020 11:47:57 EST jgrixynN No.210150
File: 1591199277087.jpg -(78711B / 76.87KB, 600x817) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. How to Abolish the Police: Lessons from Rojava
>The possibilities of establishing hierarchies of power and authority are significantly reduced in this alternative method. The people are the protectors of the people, those that they live with and interact with daily. The proximity of the ‘security forces’ to the community, being drawn from their own neighborhood ensures that violations do not occur. Where they do occur community mechanisms of justice, honor and restoration are immediately activated through the neighborhood communes. Monopoly of this process is further prevented by encouraging everyone to participate through a roster system. Anyone can volunteer. This includes the elderly, particularly women as sources of civil protection. There is nothing empowering, nothing restores the soul of a traumatized, war-torn community than seeing the matriarchs of your neighborhood confidently at street corners wielding ak-47s for the protection of the people. Unlike the terrifying images of police brutality in the US, these images do not inspire fear and terror. They inspire communal confidence, pride, self respect and belonging. Of course, in Rojava the elderly do have to take on more responsibility due to the fact that most of the young men and women have been fighting at the front lines in the war against ISIS terrorists.

23 posts and 6 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Fanny Hoblingstone - Thu, 03 Sep 2020 18:19:18 EST pLsPSbIr No.210284 Reply
1599171558542.jpg -(110158B / 107.58KB, 930x1082) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
I like how the article has women holding weapons. The kind of stout or elderly women we're accustomed to see caring for children.

gee maybe the CHAZ post right above derp
Ian Crupperchun - Fri, 04 Sep 2020 22:54:38 EST fGHDtkRk No.210285 Reply
1599274478546.jpg -(115449B / 112.74KB, 960x720) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>The kind of stout or elderly women we're accustomed to see caring for children.

Your power is slipping through your fingers like grains of sand. You're crazy if you think you can roll back rights for half the population once they're given. There will never be the referendum on gender that you're hoping for. Our bondage is being broken and we will never again return to the subjugation of the recent past. All you can do is fantasize about a future that will never be and rest assured that if things don't turn out your way, it's only "natural" that women will be worse off for it. Since that is objectively not true, there will not even be the consolation prize of our suffering.

We will build a new world from the ashes of the old. You've already lost and there is legitimately nothing you can do about it. The states you might hold up as examples of how things "should be" will only liberalize with time. They will never take over the world as they are. It will never happen. The contradictions inherent to those regressive societies will inevitably dissolve them, and freer ones will form in their stead.

What WILL happen is transnational organizations supporting human rights and local grass roots left-wing efforts will be united in social policy despite being opposed in economic policy. The fight will be over capitalism, not traditionalism. In a few hundred short years the races of man will more or less be evenly distributed around the world. Ethnic groups will start to dissolve into a world culture. Identity will be consciously adopted not assigned based on genetics or biology. Sex will be inconsequential in almost all circumstances. Gender will be something that an individual develops of their own accord. The artificial nuclear family structure will give way to a return to the natural communal structure of child-rearing. Lifelong pair-bonded relationships will be passe, and even among those in them the idea that genitals should play a role in finding a partner will be absurd.

Mankind will finally be free to experience existence fully, with a greater understanding of what is and is not objective reality, no longer bound by the fairy tales our ancestors used to explain the world. This could happen in a socialist utopia or a late-capitalist dystopia, it could happen as we enter a golden age or as humanity dies, but it will happen.

>gee maybe the CHAZ post right above derp

You are lying. The above post was a critique of CHAZ. If you look at that person's other posts, the ones that weren't outright deleted that is, it is very clear what agenda they're pushing.

You know exactly what group of people he was referring to with that post you slimey fuck.

Looking for abscure symbol

View Thread Reply
- Mon, 08 Jun 2020 16:06:38 EST gO6vZ8SZ No.210155
File: 1591646798509.png -(18288B / 17.86KB, 103x88) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Looking for abscure symbol
Im trying to find out what is this grey on white logo in the picture.
Its from a political meme, so I guessed some of you guys might know.

Thank you in advance for your time.
3 posts and 1 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Cornelius Funkinbuck - Mon, 20 Jul 2020 02:46:57 EST DjpVXflu No.210237 Reply
From the context wouldn't it be some weird illuminati shit?

why is this graph?

View Thread Reply
- Tue, 07 Apr 2020 07:01:42 EST fGHDtkRk No.210034
File: 1586257302955.jpg -(89341B / 87.25KB, 610x610) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. why is this graph?
I saw this on Wikipedia just now. It's being used to exppain an incredibly simple concept. It's comparing inferior goods (for which the demand goes down as income goes up) with normal goods (for which the demand goes up as income goes up).

That's it.

What purpose does something like this serve then? Anyone who could make sense of this graph could easily grasp something so simple without any illustration at all. It seems far more obfuscatory than anything.
23 posts and 3 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
hey its elliot from unlv - Sun, 09 Aug 2020 02:04:03 EST LR61quQn No.210279 Reply
Holy Fucking Shit. I think ii still haver this same fuckign graph installed nope... nvm it was installed on my chrome.
i remember reading this post in my dorm room.

Now like.. a billion thoughts later,
i even spent a week trying to look for the cure for cancer. I know it has/had to be somewhere

turns out I ffound sme scary ass shit instead.

but this? this is not scary.
hey its elliot from unlv - Sun, 09 Aug 2020 02:07:52 EST LR61quQn No.210280 Reply

I had ran into a collective of images, that are just like this in similiarity \ and was going to master excel and... save Enron.

and the the Lehman Brothers.

Use the examples,
Execl it,
but i mean.. i think its too diifficult to explain a graph like this unless you have a college degree... to give you an answer to your question.

Finding solutions, you know.
now I think someone cause a havocacy orr some shit, now its like... dude... we were looking for fucking solutions, or i was or something, then I started looking for cures.

Where the fukc...
oh my god.

/ends finding the cure for anything .

looks like school starts in 16 days anyways.
perfect timign tojust recrecreational
Caroline Penkinfare - Wed, 02 Sep 2020 11:23:04 EST 9cwa4O41 No.210283 Reply
The point of the graph is to allow you to make NUMERICAL, QUANTITATIVE predictions about future given some projected constraints. The "concept", as you say, can be grasped without the graph (perhaps even more easily without the graph) but the concept is "only" a qualitative grasp which will have difficulty making concrete/accurate predictions about the actual numerical changes. "X" increases when "Y" increases is easy to understand, but the rate of change in X as Y increases is more difficult to understand, but allows you to make more accurate predictions about what X will do given an arbitrary value of Y.

What are some books/work that I can read about Socrates?

View Thread Reply
- Fri, 15 May 2020 05:09:48 EST UcZcOgV6 No.210100
File: 1589533788557.jpg -(41782B / 40.80KB, 500x349) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. What are some books/work that I can read about Socrates?
I know plato and aristotle wrote lots about him, but where should I start?
14 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Shitting Bollerford - Tue, 04 Aug 2020 12:32:29 EST JyDTI0YA No.210275 Reply
Socrates was executed because he had strong connections to the Thirty Tyrants Sparta installed to rule over Athens in the aftermath of the Peloponnesian War.


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

Also while I don't think it matters to save us some posts on this incredibly slow board I'm neither trans nor gay and I don't really get on the liberal outrage train very often I'm just a mostly neutral, vaguely left-leaning party.
291 posts and 48 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Priscilla Drizzlewell - Fri, 31 Jul 2020 08:56:34 EST fGHDtkRk No.210268 Reply
>I've never met a single person who hated trans or gays in earnest

I know that you're saying this in bad faith. No one can not see what's wrong with this picture. You aren't clever.
Edwin Shittinggold - Mon, 03 Aug 2020 06:32:43 EST UcZcOgV6 No.210271 Reply
1596450763981.jpg -(90023B / 87.91KB, 1600x900) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>I have never met a single person who hated trans or gays so therefore people do not hate trans or gays

That's your logic...

Lmao I fucking love diogenes

View Thread Reply
- Sun, 26 Jul 2020 07:31:52 EST UcZcOgV6 No.210254
File: 1595763112234.png -(700650B / 684.23KB, 1000x1500) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Lmao I fucking love diogenes
This guy was legit the first troll.

He and diogenes constantly had several encounters and Diogenes trolled plato every single time or mocked him.
2 posts and 1 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Ebenezer Murdfoot - Sun, 26 Jul 2020 21:54:02 EST fGHDtkRk No.210258 Reply
1595814842540.jpg -(97352B / 95.07KB, 1200x630) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
He was pretty cool, at least the Diogenes we think existed, but it doesn't matter what the real one was like. Pyrrho of Elis was also mind-blowingly ahead of the curve and came up with a lot of ideas eerily similar to the ones we started to realize in the later 20th century.

Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle are probably the three most overrated philosophers of all time. They should only be studied in critique, as examples of where we once were and why that was flawed. They only became the three representatives of Greek philosophy because their narratives were the most enticing, not because what they thought was actually the closest to reality.
Phineas Fadgelid - Mon, 27 Jul 2020 03:55:41 EST n9leFrZZ No.210260 Reply
Perhaps but some of this actually did happen. Diogenes always annoyed plato by shitting in his seat and leaving or just eating really really loudly.


View Thread Reply
- Tue, 09 Jul 2019 21:53:47 EST G9E83KJu No.209719
File: 1562723627517.png -(916035B / 894.57KB, 1274x907) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Internet
Where will social media and the internet be in 10 -20 years?
My guess is we will all be wired into the net, where we cannot tell between online and the real world - constant virtual reality.
We will adapt a hive mind and all consciousness will become one
14 posts and 5 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Cornelius Funkinbuck - Mon, 20 Jul 2020 02:56:03 EST DjpVXflu No.210242 Reply
I think future generations are going to be so disgusted with this shit that a new "dark age" will emerge. Do people really want their children to have a porn machine replace all of humanity forever? All of thought replaced by a billboard? A brand, coca-cola, carved into their fucking skull? Away with it
Ebenezer Murdfoot - Sun, 26 Jul 2020 21:46:51 EST fGHDtkRk No.210257 Reply
1595814411540.png -(261986B / 255.85KB, 660x335) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
You say this as if we have a choice lol and with a suspicious amount of hope 🤔

Postmodern"ism" is descriptive not prescriptive. It's not saying that it's a /good/ thing that there can be no one grand narrative to life and that ultimate truth is impossible to attain and will be forever. Just that it is a thing, which is clear. We've past childhood's end and no matter how deep we bury our heads in the sands of ideology this will still always be the case. The only thing we can do at this point is buckle up and figure out how to exist, and it's not nearly all bad or even mostly bad, there are some truly amazing things about the time we're living in and I don't think there's any denying that, we just have to figure out how to cope on a societal level with the fact that everyone necessarily lives in a different universe and that while there clearly is a thing we call reality or an actual noumenal universe, as beings-in-the-world we can never attain perfect knowledge of it. The project of philosophy will therefor never end, and no resolution will ever be made. Literally the only thing left to do is embrace it because there is categorically no going back. Even if some one belief system became the sole method of deriving knowledge and all others were put down with force, that wouldn't change reality, and the illusion would require unimaginable force and violence to maintain.

Looking at your other posts I don't know if this sort of discussion is quite your speed. Everybody has different skills and abilities in life and ways they prefer to live it though and for the most part a "live and let live" mentality is the only one we can take in postmodernity. Which is the condition we will be in until the end of humanity whether you like it or not. So there's no shame in not having been exposed to the same things "educated" people have and I wouldn't be nearly this glib if you weren't also a reactionary piece of shit. Literally the only single way forward is to figure out how to cope with this ultimate revelation and continually strive towards answers we know aren't there. No positivist, modernist ideology, be it fascism, communism, or liberal capitalism, or literally ANYTHING that any one person came up with, can possibly save us now.
Ernest Geshkitch - Mon, 27 Jul 2020 16:03:23 EST nN2ySUGs No.210261 Reply
1595880203668.jpg -(98546B / 96.24KB, 1042x781) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

Has Rationalism Failed? Do we need to rediscover the idea of Truth?

View Thread Reply
- Sat, 21 Apr 2018 05:34:22 EST Nwy2IF3I No.209138
File: 1524303262008.jpg -(20998B / 20.51KB, 494x604) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Has Rationalism Failed? Do we need to rediscover the idea of Truth?
I want to talk about the concept of knowledge and truth and how we approach its understanding. I am not convinced that logic and reason can serve as the only tools for understanding truth. Here is an example using atoms I have provided to make my point more clear.
>500 BCE Leucippis develops a theory on atomism. It is the idea that everything is composed of indivisible elements called atoms.
>Early 1800s Dalton develops his own atomic theory, where he specifically says “Atoms cannot be subdivided, created or destroyed”
>1879 – 1918 Many scientists such as William Crookes discover “subatomic particles” such as protons and electrons, which are smaller than atoms.
>1964 Gell-Mann and Zweig both develop the Quark model showing that hadrons (such as protons) are made of quarks, which are smaller than subatomic particles.
We run into a bit of a problem here. Either we conclude that Leucippis and Dalton are wrong because things are made of smaller things than atoms and atoms can be subdivided. Or we can conclude that Gell-mann and Zweig actually discovered atoms, to be consistent with Dalton’s definition, and we need to rename what atoms used to be called, since Daltons atom was something that could be subdivided. But maybe we might discover something smaller than quarks and where does this end? Then we need to either rename what an atom is yet again or call it the sub-sub-sub-atomic particle.
All of this means that truth is constantly unfolding and reshaping itself. Even now, if we define anything we might end up realizing it wasn’t what it seemed to be at the time and there is a whole new deeper area on the topic to explore. Maybe rationalism has failed to grasp the nature of truth reshaping itself, so all arguments rationalism creates become undone every time a new phenomenon is discovered.
5 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Clara Faddleway - Thu, 07 May 2020 23:07:43 EST AOuUNGAb No.210074 Reply
All of reality is already here.
The main limitation is man's perspective.
As we devise configurations of matter to expand and amplify our senses, for example a magnifying glass, we will "discover" more of what has always been there.
Doris Ninnerpot - Fri, 24 Jul 2020 07:58:33 EST I8Z3gBUH No.210252 Reply

Not trying to be an ass, but why would be the presupposition of indivisibility if they apparently can keep being divided? I know your example was theoretical but would it be important for science or something to have an absolutely indivisible element?
William Pickspear - Fri, 24 Jul 2020 08:56:57 EST wkablpIZ No.210253 Reply
I think rationalism does have its own problems and limitations, but I think it's also important to point out that you're critiqing a very specific kind of reason it looks like: empiricism, or more pejoratively positivism (i.e. the science only concerned with appearances). I think that there are ways of knowing outside of merely sensory experience, and this is hardly a new debate.

Christianity discussions

View Thread Reply
- Mon, 20 Jul 2020 21:14:16 EST uW5n27ks No.210245
File: 1595294056993.jpg -(62075B / 60.62KB, 800x449) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Christianity discussions
So, Protestants. Why do you not believe in the "Deuterocanon" when it was obviously thought of as Scripture by early Christians and referenced in the New Testament? Martin Luther and John Calvin were heretics who arbitrarily deleted Scripture they didn't fancy (even some of the New Testament like Hebrews and James were almost removed because they didn't agree with it).

For those who don't know, Protestants use only the Jewish books of the Old Testament and exclude Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, and Baruch because they were written in Greek after Alexander's conquests and Protestants believe in Phariseeism I guess.

Also Sola Fide is retarded. A mass murderer could just become "born again" before he is put to death and then will go to Heaven because he "believes".
Caroline Bunhall - Mon, 20 Jul 2020 21:19:48 EST OCqJM9mw No.210246 Reply
When you think about it, Gnosticism is the only branch of Christianity that isn't completely retarded.
Beatrice Pickleridge - Mon, 20 Jul 2020 22:44:28 EST JyDTI0YA No.210248 Reply
Gnosticism is a slur. It doesn't mean anything. It was nothing more than a derogatory term Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and the like used to group a wide variety of disparate belief systems who's sole unifying factor was their unorthodoxy. Some supposed 'gnostic' sects aren't even dualistic. Others were far closer to modern Protestantism than anything resembling Sethianism or Manichaeism (the Cathars in particular are one such victim of the Church's attempted grouping of all heresies under a singular banner). 'Gnosticism', as a unified category with supposed shared theological tenants, arouse purely because orthodoxy willed it into being. To even compare second century belief systems (the entire proto-orthodoxy period) with later fourth century derivatives is an extreme stretch of the imagination, much less later medieval belief systems, yet the term Gnosticism is an inherent push to achieve just that. At best, it's an reductive oversimplification. At worst, it's little more than shoving a bunch of unrelated heresiarchs into an amorphous mass with no narrative cohesion to speak of. There's no Gnostic bible, only a group of vaguely-related and heavily debated texts lumped under the same label (and note that many supposed gnostic sects were happy to use certain orthodox Christian works like the Gospel of John and the Pauline epistles) No sect of supposed Gnosticism called itself Gnostic until the modern era after the recovery of the Nag Hammadi library, thousands of years removed from their theological forebears.

Know that when you use the term Gnosticism and refer to it as a specific 'branch' of Christianity (which is humorous because some so-called 'gnostic' sects don't even consider the Christ, like the modern Mandaeans), you're using orthodox Christian theology. You're using the long-dead thoughts and opinions of the orthodox Church Fathers in a way quite converse to how the supposed Gnostics of the day regarded themselves.
Caroline Bunhall - Mon, 20 Jul 2020 22:54:41 EST OCqJM9mw No.210249 Reply
Actually you're right, all of Christianity is completely retarded.

Curated Society

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

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

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

Personally I like a lot of the benefits of the American Way of Life. But unfrotunately it's going to go away forever if we dont invest ourselves intellectually,financially, societally and physically. As for the rest of the world I dont really give a shit about them. Being a Canadien or a US Citizen is a real priviledge, despite one's heritage.
22 posts and 9 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Cornelius Funkinbuck - Mon, 20 Jul 2020 02:53:51 EST DjpVXflu No.210241 Reply
There's always a catastrophe waiting to destroy

If Muslims were White

View Thread Reply
- Tue, 04 Apr 2017 09:40:56 EST 54PBc7Id No.207974
File: 1491313256272.jpg -(65536B / 64.00KB, 645x484) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. If Muslims were White
100% serious question, this is about how society responds to race.

How would the conversation about Muslims change if they weren't mostly brown, but instead mostly white?
Like, what if the 9/11 guys were white, and all these people fighting in the ME were white, all the people bombing India and Malaysia were white, all the people who were banned by Trump were white? What if the people wearing Burqas that were being banned were all white?
How would people react? What would they say?
57 posts and 9 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
John Gellywell - Fri, 15 May 2020 05:36:30 EST UcZcOgV6 No.210102 Reply
You do realize Muslims are religious followers of Allah, not a race of people?

It wouldn't make much difference because people have and will continue to fight over what god to worship.
Shitting Handlesug - Wed, 17 Jun 2020 16:30:58 EST PjzV5gHZ No.210169 Reply
They wouldn't be a protected class in the west and would be treated like Nazis.
User is currently banned from all boards
Cornelius Funkinbuck - Mon, 20 Jul 2020 02:52:03 EST DjpVXflu No.210240 Reply
lmao, negatively? They ran an airplane into a fucking building

Near-term Extinction

View Thread Reply
- Fri, 25 Oct 2019 10:01:29 EST ywHNbnM1 No.209806
File: 1572012089173.jpg -(49360B / 48.20KB, 590x318) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Near-term Extinction
*Global warming
*Nuclear war
*Collapse of the ecosystem
*Dependence on finite resources
*Designer pathogens
*Resource wars
*Political polarization leading to massive civil unrest

The Great Filter cometh.

We're not going to be able to think our way out of the hole we've dug for ourselves. Humanity is facing near-term extinction and there's nothing we can do about it.
So how are you dealing with this (asuming you believe it)? Personally I take the George Carlin stance, I no longer have any investment into humanity. I have totally disconnected myself from this world and am totally indifferent to the fate of mankind. I had hopes and dreams for our species, but they were all a pipe dream.
29 posts and 4 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
borgia@/ 92 - Thu, 18 Jun 2020 21:41:58 EST 0oNhfLGW No.210174 Reply
1592530918453.jpg -(449606B / 439.07KB, 1531x2880) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>hopes and dreams for our species, but they were all a pipe dream.
you wonna place the collection in some malfortune?
a pipe dream? like your feeding some furball a bad idea to not cry about?
> but they were all a pipe dream.
> do you bleive in minasota?
Cornelius Funkinbuck - Mon, 20 Jul 2020 02:50:56 EST DjpVXflu No.210239 Reply

I think that God has a plan OP. I really hope it involves a benefit for myself, but wonder

wittgenstein and gender

View Thread Reply
- Sat, 27 Jun 2020 17:06:55 EST fGHDtkRk No.210192
File: 1593292015858.jpg -(139447B / 136.18KB, 800x513) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. wittgenstein and gender
Something I'm currently working on, posting for critique. This is a rough draft of only one part of it. I've compiled a dozen or so sources for the claims here but have yet to go through and specifically cite everything and make corrections where necessary.

I rarely see it used this way, but I think the philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein is actually very powerful against biological essentialism if you can get someone to accept his premises before relating them to gender. This is particularly useful for convincing people who (pretend to) come from a purely secular background and are claiming to argue against the validity of trans gender identities from a "scientific" point of view.

Rather than arguing from the point of view of later continental philosophers like Derrida and Foucault, who these people ironically have no problem rejecting outright based on what they've heard about them without so much as even listening to what they have to say, arguing from the point of view of the founder (and arguably the most orthodox member) of the positivist, analytic tradition at the very least makes these faux-secularist arguments look as subjective and irrational as they truly are by stripping away the veneer of logic and reason.

[Introduce his philosophy with his "beetle in a box metaphor"]

As paraphrased in a film based on his life: "When you want to know the meaning of a word, don't look inside yourself, look at the uses of the word in our way of life. Look at how we behave". Wittgenstein suggests the only meaning which can be extracted from words is that which can be inferred from how they are used in a given language and that no single comprehensive definition exists for any word. In terms of human experience, this means no concrete "thing" can be said to exist which "causes" anything with-in the realm of internal experience, be it pain, emotions, religious experiences, or gender. "That whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent (Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus)".

His famous example is the word "game", for which no single definition can be given in the English language (or any language that isn't logically perfect). Instead, he argues, the definitions of words lie in what he calls "families of resemblance". In essence, a word cannot be comprehensively defined such that the definition is true in all instances. The best we can do to define a word is give a list of common traits and say "and that sort of thing" (Philosophical Investigations).

The example that many people might be familiar with from philosophy or psychology class is when it comes to the definition of the word "dog". When asked what a dog is, you might say it's a creature with fur, four legs, two ears, which barks, has a tail, and loves meat, but a dog could just as easily be hairless, three-legged, one-eared, mute, tail-less, or hate meat and still be a dog. Conversely, such a creature could also be a wolf, a coyote, or a fox. [I can explain why "mammal" doesn't work as a universal identifier to anyone here who would bring it up but anyone reading this for my class will already know why it doesn't]

With-in the realm of trans denialism, a very common and nonsensical argument you see is people pointing to a stereotypically masculine trans woman and saying "just look at them!", pointing to specific secondary sex characteristics like broader shoulders, larger hands, laryngeal prominence, etc. and saying "women don't look like that!" when in reality no single one of those traits is necessarily unique to cis men and trans women. Conversely, a cis man could have a smaller frame, smoother skin, no Adam's apple, a higher voice, etc. and still be a cis man.

When people bring up chromosomes one of my favorite things to ask is "what do chromosomes do?" because they almost never have an explanation. Chromosomes contain genetic code which tells cells how they should reproduce, but one of the biggest single things affecting human mortality is the fact that the cells very often mishear or don't listen at all. One example of many is the case of an embryo with XY chromosomes that has total androgen insensitivity, which means that it has cells that do not respond to the male sex hormones at all, but respond to female sex hormones normally, which causes the fetus …
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
4 posts and 2 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Nathaniel Drendlestag - Mon, 29 Jun 2020 19:02:25 EST fGHDtkRk No.210200 Reply
1593471745583.jpg -(108391B / 105.85KB, 893x1360) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Thank you, again I should've been clearer that the primary intention of the paper of which this is only one section is to introduce and defend Wittgenstein's philosophy, I related it to gender in this section simply because I've never really seen it done and I wanted to perhaps kill two birds with one stone.

I'm not particularly good with the rhetoric side of things. I can write something like this to an audience I know is almost guaranteed to agree with me on the basic premise, but going back to square one with someone who says "sex and gender are the same, you can't change your gender, gender is stored in the chromosomes, etc." I turn into a sputtering idiot. I don't really think that I'm smarter than anyone else or that people who disagree with me are dumb, and I'm not trying to talk over anyone, rather I think it's a personal failing that I struggle to be both precise and concise at the same time. In the tiny little bubble I live in, it's not really put me at a disadvantage. It's just the language of my milieu. I see it almost like a dialect. When I'm not trying to make a point or explain concepts I can code-switch pretty well and I have friends of all walks of life, but I struggle to strip things down, because then I feel like I'm not properly expressing what I'm thinking. I'm distinctly in the wrong though and I hold it up more as a flaw than anything else.

I'm making my way through this to learn to be better about it, but clearly it's not really taking lol
Cornelius Funkinbuck - Mon, 20 Jul 2020 02:49:08 EST DjpVXflu No.210238 Reply
Is every college paper related to twitter in some fashion now?

Makes sense I guess. Don't want to get cancelled!

jolly african-american
Ebenezer Murdfoot - Sun, 26 Jul 2020 21:57:48 EST fGHDtkRk No.210259 Reply
Very substantive critique. You supported what the other person was saying about it not really mattering how sound your arguments are when debating certain kinds of people at least.

This wasn't for you, go away. En bee.

Report Post
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.