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


Community Updates

420chan now supports HTTPS! If you find any issues, you may report them in this thread
What is even evil? by Molly Fonkinspear - Wed, 27 Sep 2017 17:54:17 EST ID:YXMsMuFM No.208438 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1506549257864.png -(69205B / 67.58KB, 292x191) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 69205
So there's this discussion I've been having on /b/ about belief, and it naturally evolved to banter about the nature of evil.

So I'm pretty much a relativist, because firstly I think humanity embodies both sides of the dichotomy as a fact of nature i.e. how we're made and how we perceive the world, and secondly because I believe there's no meaning beyond what humans the ones humans apply to the universe.

Yet I do find myself agreeing to being on the "good" side.

Why is this?
14 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Lost Fellow - Sat, 21 Oct 2017 15:17:04 EST ID:dIg1PQg5 No.208469 Ignore Report Quick Reply
How would the world be without the search for meaning tho?
Like, you do realise you have a smartphone and electricity because of meaning and shit?
Hedda Soggledadge - Sat, 04 Nov 2017 16:05:46 EST ID:6K8aMVlj No.208496 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1509825946745.png -(193077B / 188.55KB, 600x600) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>So I'm pretty much a relativist
See pic. But in all serious, evil should be understood as being counter-posed to virtue (i.e. virtue ethics). Virtue is good, evil is bad.
Molly Blillerhog - Sat, 04 Nov 2017 17:11:09 EST ID:YXMsMuFM No.208497 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1509829869726.jpg -(44497B / 43.45KB, 872x701) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

You may have a point with virtue I think. It's close to my own way of seeing reality. I don't apply some moral derivative of the divine to my actions, yet I do agree with a lot of religious morals of religious preachers, like Jesus, simply because what they essentially talk about is these human ideals which are usually something we all want to strive for. We all want to become better people than what we actually are, no?

But then what makes a virtue?
Nathaniel Clublingworth - Sun, 05 Nov 2017 11:27:38 EST ID:pf1/qTT/ No.208498 Ignore Report Quick Reply

It's actually mostly because of slavery. Which is pretty meaningless, for the slave.
Martin Clagglebury - Sun, 19 Nov 2017 15:04:56 EST ID:/iCKvJxT No.208541 Ignore Report Quick Reply
First, establish what is commonly accepted as "good" and "evil".
The most popular human forms of evil have been established throughout the ages.
Murder, rape, thievery, lying, wrath, and hatred.
The most popular forms of good have also been established.
Charity, honor, truth, kindness, modesty and love.
These are highly prototypical expressions of what "good" and "evil" are.
Now the question, why do you believe yourself to be on the "good side"?
Is good and evil something we are born with? Something inherent in a soul? If a soul is a real thing?
Or are we products of environment? Would you be the same person if you were born and raised in a slum like downtown detroit? Would you be the same if you were raised by only one of your parents?
If an african american man was born in a nice suburb, would he still sell crack? #roasted
And how much does culture affect? Do the movies and stories you were told as a child and even now affect your perception, affect your morals? And when you finally do realize that your set of beliefs are manufactured by external stimuli, you will see yourself as nothing more than a collection of experiences and impulse responses, knee jerks that tweak your perceptions and affect how you understand and respond to future experiences. Seeing beyond the veil of subjectivity you discover that no objective truth is observable and that you are the ultimate judge of reality.
Enter the wild, wild, west. A cowboy riding a horse, a gun on his hip. He has written and signed his own constitution, of what is just, just for him. What is right and what is wrong when he stick his gun in your mouth? Will you die for a philosophy? As far as the cowboy sees its survival of the quickest..
So why are you "good"? Because life has been good to you? Because your life has shown you goodness so it exists within you? You obviously didn't make the choice to be good on a basis of logical axioms or you wouldn't asking why your good..And when you see through your own bullshit perhaps then you will discover what you really are. Nosce te ipsum.

Should i feel guilty for hating homophobes? by Eliza Gemmerwell - Sat, 18 Nov 2017 07:26:05 EST ID:qJ30WOYM No.208540 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1511007965459.png -(78814B / 76.97KB, 1280x509) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 78814
I live in Australia and we found out on wednesday that Homophobes are now in the minority in Australia. Should i feel guilty for hating them? because they are a minority i am legitimately confused on how i should feel toward them.

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

Also while I don't think it matters to save us some posts on this incredibly slow board I'm neither trans nor gay and I don't really get on the liberal outrage train very often I'm just a mostly neutral, vaguely left-leaning party.
91 posts and 9 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Jack Tootwater - Sat, 11 Nov 2017 18:20:44 EST ID:4+oWREai No.208528 Ignore Report Quick Reply
> I meant "they'll work it out among themselves". And of course I mean in your local area, not the world. If everyone took care of their own little place like that, these things would happen less.

You didn't outright say it but the logic leads down to it. When we leave it to people to handle it, many times we find it's never handled. If anything, they band together to make sure they exclude groups of people.

What do you do when you are a black man or gay man living in a time and place that completely excludes you, and everyone there is against you? What do you do when you have no one to help you?

It's nice to think that society would just handle it, but it doesn't work this way. It just ensures groups of people remain second class.

It'll happen far less to none if it's enforced. No black man should ever run into a situation where he is barred from stepping foot into a public domain. Like I said before, we aren't going to wait around for you guys to take care of it because many times, they WILL take care of it. Just not in an inclusive way.

>nd from the government's point of view, we have laws because they enjoy the power and status they get from being the ones enforcing them, either directly (cops), or by making decisions (judges, lawyers, etc).

The government is an extension of the peoples will. Getting together to try to figure out everything from what type of roads we should have, to what you can and cannot have on your front lawn, to what should be done if one person scams another.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Jack Tootwater - Sat, 11 Nov 2017 18:45:59 EST ID:4+oWREai No.208529 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Group A wants to include blacks, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Gays, Trans, seniors, women, whites, asians, et al

Group B wants only to include white people, and let most of the influence fall to men of that singular group.

Group A is protecting their view of society

Group B wants to eliminate all but their race from their society.

Which one is superior, and how do you think Group A will react to Group Bs demands? Which one is more inclusive?

Which one is worth protecting and dying for?
Nathaniel Fogglepet - Mon, 13 Nov 2017 13:39:40 EST ID:yZAkBhxT No.208531 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>And yet, you're holding it?
No, I'm not. I keep claiming 'A and B are different things.' You keep reiterating that 'A and A are the same thing!' without any new argument for why what I'm calling B is actually A. Until you come up with an actual response rather than reiterating your same claim, I have nothing further to say to you.
Nathaniel Fogglepet - Mon, 13 Nov 2017 13:41:29 EST ID:yZAkBhxT No.208532 Ignore Report Quick Reply
To be clear, I'm referring to A and B as arbitrary variables, nothing to do with >>208529 's use of 'Group A & B.' nb
Martin Wadgebanks - Thu, 16 Nov 2017 13:39:23 EST ID:F9/5mVqX No.208538 Ignore Report Quick Reply

"include" in what exactly?

Do you think important people of the past, who weren't important in their time by Basil Dessleford - Sun, 22 Oct 2017 16:31:33 EST ID:tKRmy9hF No.208470 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1508704293015.jpg -(31320B / 30.59KB, 928x510) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 31320
ever thought themselves fools for writing it all down?

I mean we have all these books, written long before the telegraph or even the printing press. We have records, documents, journals, short stories tales and fables. Do you think the people writing these seemingly frivolous and pointless logs containing their dreams hopes opinions plans debts and whimsies, ever thought to themselves the way we today do, "What's the point of writing a book? What's the point of keeping a journal? I'm a nobody. It doesn't matter. I'll never be famous. I'm going to play videogames/watch tv/movies/jerk off/do yard work/eat food.". Except minus the modern stuff they obviously didn't have, replace with old timey equivalents.

My point is, i've been mulling it over and I don't think they thought in those terms. They didn't have kardasians, they didn't have instant porn on tap. When they got bored, they contemplated life, they wrote things down. Not in aetherial online forums. They wrote them down in a way that they would be kept and organized. Not lost and scattered to the winds of the internet. They probably didn't expect anyone to read their crap (i'm talking about normal people who later became known through their journals and works, not people who were doing multigenerational work at the time and expected their shit to be read down the line.) and didn't care either. It was for them.

What I'm also getting at is that we're rarely doing it "for me" anymore. Like everyone I know is doing things so they can...SHOW it to the world. So they can, get some kind of sliver of fame. I don't understand it. Fame is stupid. Self fulfilment is what matters, you'll find that out after you get fans. It even will grate on you, because you will hate them for loving you, because you don't love yourself...it angers you that they see something that you don't consider to exist. It bothers you that they get to love you, but you don't get to love yourself.

Idk. I think tech is fucking us up badly. Socially. It's getting fucking creepy. Like really, really fucking creepy. Kids have their faces in their phones all the time now and I always thought it was bullshit when adults would say that growing up but now...it's creepy, like I said. I'm only 27. And shit is getting fucking weird

Was just thinking all this while journaling for the first time in years. I've been putting my phone in a drawer recently...idk why. It creeps me the fuck out. When I can visually see it, it grips me. I can't explain it and it just creeps me out badly. When it's not physically on me, or visible, I feel differently. My anxiety goes the fuck away. I have had crippling anxiety for the last 4 fucking years (when I got my first smartphone...) and have had no idea why, or what changed me. These shit's are fucking creepy. I pretty much use my pc again when needed now. Feels much more normal. I don't even use it often. Mostly for movies/tv, but I only watch maybe a few shows a day, whereas with the phone, I was watching dozens of yt videos and random distracting horse shit. Something about the touchscreen...it grabs your monkey brain harder. Another note, I can't use pc on acid or shrooms, but I can use a touchscreen fine. It's fucking bizarre.

Anyway, this turned into kind of a rant/ramble but it started as a simple thought. I was wondering what the differences were between us and them after having the initial contemplation on what their intention was for their personal journalings. As a form of personal entertainment and remembrance at a later date, or as a means to be "remembered in history somehow" as I personally have fantasies about as a "modern man".

Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
1 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Emma Fanford - Tue, 24 Oct 2017 22:47:56 EST ID:e5C650gC No.208475 Ignore Report Quick Reply
i most assuredly understand and agree with your points about the creepiness of smart phones and how easily people become addicted to their blinking screen. at work when i am in the break room 90% of the time, out of 5 or 6 workers, i will be the only one not slouching forward playing with my smart phone or tablet. one lady is always shopping. for anything. clothes, shoes, groceries, home things, doesn't matter. if she has a free nanosecond she is online shopping. another guy always play games. like the shitty asian tap-screen-faster-to-win phone games. 3 or 4 others are glued to their facebook feed. meanwhile i am just slowly gazing from person to person like i am at a zoo. i could pull a gun out of my pants, disassemble, clean, and reassemble it, or just pull out my dick and then put it away, and none would be the wiser.

as to the "doing it for yourself" vs "doing it for others" i think that varies on an individual basis, obviously with cultural and nurtural influences, but still the ultimate view and choice is one's own, regardless of time. think of the graffiti on a wall from ancient pompeii that gets posted, http://www.pompeiana.org/Resources/Ancient/Graffiti%20from%20Pompeii.htm where they talk about getting drunk and fucking bitches and shit. that was essentially their "social media" of the time, and i am sure at least one scribbler was thinking "gee i hope pontificus thinks im funny when he reads this" while another was thinking "ha ha i pooped here" and does it for themselves
Albert Goodhall - Thu, 26 Oct 2017 17:28:15 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.208476 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>They wrote them down in a way that they would be kept and organized.

Nope. Most written historical records are gone... forever. You should read up on lost books that we only know from lost books that were mentioned in half-decayed books.
Matilda Clucklestone - Tue, 14 Nov 2017 03:08:15 EST ID:Iw2FXFb1 No.208533 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1510646895885.jpg -(141136B / 137.83KB, 437x606) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
For example China had ten ages in their mythology that spans back beyond what is known. Of what little history remains the dating is dramatically inaccurate. Anyways, the reason that is is because all the sages were killed and the books chronologing those eras were burned.

If you go back farther, history was remembered through storytellers, poets, and bards or whatever. The stories were fluid, altered over time, and varied per teller, until they were written. The story of Beowulf being the most obvious example. That tale was told countless times taking on different meanings while the core premise probably remained. Its continuous development occurring in spoken form becomes stunted in writing. From the novel a movie, diluted for the worse, to inspired variations like the 13th Warrior, its re-presented in another medium. Scroll credits.

The storytellers of the distant past who kept humanity's lessons and history alive across many generations are unknown. Certainly there is power in being the keeper of culture, its flame, but it was about what they told, not who they were. A select few people can make movies, many can write, everyone can tell stories.
Fuck Diffingridge - Tue, 14 Nov 2017 20:15:20 EST ID:oX3f4KlI No.208534 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The internet as a historical document will outlast every notebook journal diary or folio in existence.
Eliza Gemmerwell - Sat, 18 Nov 2017 06:57:53 EST ID:qJ30WOYM No.208539 Ignore Report Quick Reply

and yet finding anything of worth is like finding a certain needle in a pile of needles.

humor me please on what you would do to help someone by amatuerhour - Fri, 10 Nov 2017 09:03:52 EST ID:Pl+UfWe9 No.208521 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1510322632042.gif -(1554544B / 1.48MB, 500x500) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 1554544
Paradox of logic and spirituality and the dichotomy of self

He's on a path that cant be reversed and we can't force a river to bend, it has to flow to its natural whims. As this
cycle he has is about to end, we have to find the catalyst that hold together his psyche in an unhealthy manner. This is his defense mechanism of equal parts dismissive and destructive, meaning when he feels threatened he tries to defuse and disassociate the meaning of the consequences of his actions that is conditioning him in a negative way.

This defensive mechanism is the thing that has tricked him that he can survive like this, in perpetual self-destruction
affecting the people around him. The pain of losing what HE think he has lost and the loves and passions associated is
what is keeping him from the final catharsis and becoming his true self. Cody is in a sense reversed his negative and positive selves(which are in every way equal, one and the same and also the greater sum of their parts as a whole) to their positions.

I picture codys energy and form that is as inverted being yet thats is just as much as cody as the all badass parts of
cody, because his natural instinct (again this is all an initial summation) is to protect the things and emotions and passions he values the most. Like a black hole or as an abyss I described earlier or a living organism of emotion that has form and is formless. This energy around him that is controlling his actions to accept the wrong kind of energy
that festers and feds this almost parasite that rejects everything and everyone

Its appearent this feeling/form/energy has become more and more tangible in a sense that it has spread to you guys
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

Schools turned into psychic-wards by Childfree 4life - Fri, 28 Jul 2017 05:24:38 EST ID:wN9L5jv0 No.208300 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1501233878679.jpg -(20439B / 19.96KB, 590x350) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 20439
What the fuck is wrong with children at schools nowadays?!

It turned really to the worse!

Learned it the hard way during an internship:

Children don't learn any essential behavioral patterns anymore. 90% are getting their educational input by some arsehole youtuber and the parents just don't care.

So the teacher has too often the role of educating these hellspawns in basic social-skills!

Too often I hear stupid parents say shit like "we were bad in school too! We did also pull pranks and were disrespectfull" (best if done in hearing-range of their hellspawn!)

but I dare you to visit a regular school or Campus these days: There is a difference between smoking in secret at the restrooms or attacking teachers with scissors (and beeing a disrespectful cunt in general)
20 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Alice Blummerlun - Tue, 17 Oct 2017 01:32:40 EST ID:w9KFVcbk No.208464 Ignore Report Quick Reply
You have never been to a psych ward. That shit is frustratingly orderly, especially to a disorderly mind. The guy that is super nuts is usually followed by a big male nurse. (a lot of male nurses do psych). If there is a fight there are big guys to stop it and a working protocol. They have seen everything and I think nothing would surprise anyone who worked in one. If school was like a psych ward I would say that it would be an improvement in terms of no bullshit. But I believe parents would complain if their aggressive child got a syringe full of Thorazine. But I'm just shitposting here to brake the root of your premise. kids are always disorderly and annoying especially one class size goes from 20 to 1 to 30 to 1 or even 35+ kids to one adult. Think about that its tough. Especially with new protocols such as wait 5 minutes for the kids to fight eachother until the cop is allowed to break them up. Maybe even slap some wrists. Its not a winning institution. A psych ward does it's fucking job. Even though psych wards mostly consist of people failing at suicide or told the wrong person they want to off themselves, they've seen footage. nb
Shitting Callybat - Sat, 28 Oct 2017 19:14:23 EST ID:XU0wBvEL No.208483 Ignore Report Quick Reply
My parents sat me down in front of a computer and told me not to bother them. At the time, I was 4 or 5 and my father thought I was weak and didn't want to talk to me while my mother just wanted to pray all the time. I didn't learn from Youtubers at the time (because Youtube wasn't popular until another 5 years) nor did I learn from people I knew at school because my parents kept me secluded from others claiming that they were people possessed with demons and we shouldn't talk to them.
In that case, I didn't learn any social skills. Whenever I talk, my parents would tell me to shut up and to only talk unless being asked to be talked to. And then I switched schools constantly because my parents believed everyone at my schools were demons and needed to get me out of them.
Along came one school where the teachers were worried that I wouldn't talk and told my parents I could have autism. They got me out of that school as well.
It was a neverending pattern of me not allowed to be around people and never learning socialization that well and easily the best people I can socialize around are people who also didn't learn socialization that well.
As for the violent tendencies, people think you're being edgy and never take you seriously for it and you try to explain "Well, my parents would hit me with metal cords and wooden sticks," and they laugh and tell you to shut up for being edgy. You're basically treated as a joke. When you live being punished all the time, you become used to punishments to the point where you don't care if they happen or not.
And I don't think teachers are doing a great job at all, at least in my district. They choose literal children in adults' bodies. These people are juvenile. They try teaching the easiest thing "because I know how it felt when I was in school as well haha" and no one learns. They talk about social media, pop culture, and adopt lol so randumb humor to become closer with the children while often running out of class time to finish lessons or to teach. They let the students rule because they're afraid they'll be as oppressive as their highschool teacher. I think there's also issues with the …
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Wesley Smallhood - Wed, 01 Nov 2017 01:20:33 EST ID:w9KFVcbk No.208495 Ignore Report Quick Reply
It is always going through phases. In the 50s they had 2 hours of shit like dancing. In the 70s they knocked down all the walls and it was a shit show with everyone in an auditorium essentially. Now they are going prison style. It is either going to stay a prison or get freaky and kids will have more freedom.
Nathaniel Geppernick - Fri, 10 Nov 2017 05:57:20 EST ID:xVFIf/dG No.208520 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Jezus, American schools sound depressing as fuck.
Fuck Diffingridge - Tue, 14 Nov 2017 20:21:45 EST ID:oX3f4KlI No.208536 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>I believe parents would complain if their aggressive child got a syringe full of Thorazine

Not these days. These days parents are all too happy to dose their 'autistic' (aggressive) kids with risperidone even if they grow tits in the process.

Atavism? by Cyril Dremmlefuck - Tue, 06 Dec 2016 15:26:13 EST ID:Y5UP2WQL No.207410 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1481055973605.jpg -(8587B / 8.39KB, 200x246) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 8587
Does anyone else have a bad reaction to the mentally handicapped? Am I literally hitler?
41 posts and 4 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Phoebe Nullerton - Mon, 30 Oct 2017 11:20:09 EST ID:c1i9jeUP No.208490 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>but the right to kill is definitely innate.

I think we're conflating "rights" with "capacities." Rights are social constructs, not innate truths or potentials about the world. They change over time in response to the change of rulership, culture, and technology. They only exist when a society 1) chooses to acknowledge them and 2) provides a pathway through which individuals can invoke them.

>if I wanted to kill people, I could, period. That's my right.

There are all sorts of things that we can hypothetically do, but that doesn't make them rights. In fact, rights are moreso about what you can't do, in that most rights are protective in nature. For example, I have a right to not be killed by you or any other human. This is a right of mine because our legal system acknowledges and upholds it in a society in which we've all (probably implicitly) agreed to that right. If they didn't uphold it, then I would have no way of invoking that right when you try to kill me.

I thought about mentioning this essay on /b/ the other day, but mentioning the idea behind it led to a flurry of knee-jerk "animal hater" accusations. I think it would be better understood here though, since this thread seems more thoughtful:

back in undergrad ethics, I remember reading this essay (I wish I could remember the author, but I've spent too much time on /benz/ and /weed/) which, on the surface, alleged to take a contentious position: that animals have no rights. At the time I was a staunch believer of animal rights, mostly because I think we should treat living creatures with respect. However, upon closer inspection, I realized that his argument wasn't about whether or not we should respect animals (he explained in his conclusion that we have obligations to treat animals with respect), but that the nature of rights is such that they can only exist when upheld by a society or other authority. Unfortunately, this idea is easily confused with "we should abuse animals" when not given more than a passing glance. Fingers crossed that that doesn't happen here.
Simon Ninkinmurk - Mon, 06 Nov 2017 01:11:08 EST ID:dWvanT/s No.208500 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>For example, I have a right to not be killed by you or any other human.
But you don't. There isn't a legal system in place to stop you from being killed, if you try to say that to someone who is trying to kill you, you are going to die. But, you do have a right to bear arms(in the US), and that can be used to stop someone from killing you. And you do have a right for the person who did the action to get justice, but there is no magical mechanism that will pop up between you and death. Only those ready to defend themselves will survive.

>In fact, rights are moreso about what you can't do
Incorrect, rights are about what the government cant do to you. Laws are about what you cant do to others without consequences from society. Neither of those things make those actions impossible.

>alleged to take a contentious position: that animals have no rights
>but that the nature of rights is such that they can only exist when upheld by a society or other authority
Before humans, all animals took their rights, or they didn't get them. At this point, we are no longer just animals, so we offer all rights to our whole species. Even with all that, we still cannot take care of our own, why should we move on to other species. I would slaughter every animal on the planet if it meant longterm success for humans. We can either subjugate force, the only power, or be at its mercy.
Samuel Shittinglock - Mon, 06 Nov 2017 15:19:22 EST ID:nX761Sq0 No.208503 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>all animals took their rights, or they didn't get them.
No, animals operated without rights. A lion catching a gazelle isn't the lion taking a right. Rights are societal constructs. They exist only as much as a society is willing to uphold them.

>There isn't a legal system in place to stop you from being killed
Just because I can't stop a murderer with an explanation of my rights doesn't mean that they don't exist. The capacity for a right to be violated doesn't prove its nonexistence.
Priscilla Pennernerk - Tue, 07 Nov 2017 14:30:14 EST ID:wRqF/W2w No.208504 Ignore Report Quick Reply
ITT: People conflate arguing about semantics with ethical debate.

Spoiler: The fuck does it matter how we describe these things? Isn't what really matters (and the point of the thread) what we should or shouldn't do viz. other people (i.e. ethical debate) rather than what we do or don't call our ideas about what to do? Rights, capacities, justification...all just human meat-sounds to cover up our incomprehension of how we ought to behave or what even reality is...mistaking semantics for epistemology or ethics, a very primitive kind of misunderstanding...
Fuck Diffingridge - Tue, 14 Nov 2017 20:24:27 EST ID:oX3f4KlI No.208537 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Belief in biological rights is a sure sign of a social darwinist.

This t-shirt Ad uses Nazi Swastikas to share Peace, Love and Freedom by yobrosup - Sat, 15 Jul 2017 12:32:42 EST ID:7Y5vwbb4 No.208275 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1500136362952.jpg -(114365B / 111.68KB, 470x560) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 114365
This video advertises a clothing line which uses redesigned Swastikas as the main theme. Apparently the aim of this Ad is to destroy the stigmatization of the Nazi Swastika connecting the symbol to new meanings: Peace, Love and Freedom. Very interesting

8 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Emma Chundlefut - Sat, 26 Aug 2017 14:52:53 EST ID:wx5UJDIc No.208403 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Found the 12 year old
Edward Gaffingway - Sat, 26 Aug 2017 15:38:42 EST ID:e8hfwBjx No.208404 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>This video advertises a clothing line which uses redesigned Swastikas as the main theme. Apparently the aim of this Ad is to normalize and de-stigmatize the Nazi Swastika, without effectively connecting the symbol to the new meanings. Very interesting
Fixed for clarity. Next time don't take a group at face-value
Edward Gaffingway - Sat, 26 Aug 2017 15:39:39 EST ID:e8hfwBjx No.208405 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Also, caturday > lolcats
Never forgetti
Thomas Lightforth - Wed, 04 Oct 2017 11:42:05 EST ID:Sm7nPCsL No.208455 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1507131725153.jpg -(51855B / 50.64KB, 439x335) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
If they really wanted to steal it, they should steal it from Hitler himself. They could achieve this if they created a film about kid Hitler. In the film, Hitler would be struggling and running around in his harsh life. A group of people try to help Hitler and make Him come up with a dream to cling on for hope, like a vision.

But then something terrible happens and through this the swastika becomes a symbol of Hitlers broken hope for the future and the terrible consequences that had for the world. The message being that you should not be like Hitler, you should have hope, the swastika being worn to remind ourselves what happens if we have no hope.
Fuck Drunningham - Sat, 21 Oct 2017 01:13:31 EST ID:w9KFVcbk No.208467 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The swaztica is a common cultural symbol that resonates with people on a deep level. Hitler knew this and exploited it. It is now attributed to the opposite of its original cultural meaning. It is hopeless to use it now unless you are a Hindu. They have a reason to use it and are also less tied to its recent negative context

My thought: What did the greats get WRONG? by Sophie Gaddleford - Thu, 28 Sep 2017 04:13:02 EST ID:tKRmy9hF No.208440 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1506586382687.jpg -(727321B / 710.27KB, 1200x1759) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 727321
Everyone remembers the greats for what they got right. But what about their follys? I was just about to start googling when I thought this might make a good thread. I'm more of a philosophy fanboy and am not well read. I hope we have some philosophy wizards here who can enlighten everyone about this.

My reasoning, I want these men to be humanized. I want myself and others to be able to see them as men with faults and contradictions and not unapproachable gods.
Shit Dottingshit - Thu, 28 Sep 2017 14:36:10 EST ID:hAlFpoKZ No.208441 Ignore Report Quick Reply
prince charles, the queen's wife, has been a racist fuck his whole life. one of my favorites was when he visited aborigines in australia and asked them if they still threw spears at each other
Graham Popperchet - Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:44:33 EST ID:F/2wvfYE No.208457 Ignore Report Quick Reply
We could start with how Thales thought water made everything and was the arche.

Fuckin dumbass
Polly Buzzgold - Sat, 07 Oct 2017 16:33:31 EST ID:t0zxR+eH No.208458 Ignore Report Quick Reply
They were in general full of shit, but millennia of debating how and why the greeks were full of shit is how we got to our current understanding of pretty much everything so it all works out, very few of the ancient's theories are still considered accurate.

Socrates and Plato thought that the material world we perceive was just the ephemeral shadows of the true Forms of things, unchanging and archetypal representations of the true perfect form of an idea or concept. Essentially that there was a solid, definable mathematical form of reality that we lived alongside in a separate shifting and chaotic reality that reflects the absolute truth of the Forms.

Plato took the math stuff even further and believed that since reality was mathematically defined, and aesthetically pleasing mathematics lead to an absolute truth observation was meaningless and all truths could be arrived at through mathematical calculations.

In general they put way too much emphasis on human aesthetics and beauty and conflated beauty with truth or facts.
William Fundlechore - Thu, 12 Oct 2017 13:05:02 EST ID:zwKlR0Nw No.208459 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Another way to look at those same sets of particulars is that western philosophy became fixated on re-interpreting the philosophy of the classics, and became bound up in shadow-boxing increasingly abstracted transformations of classical philosophy, which had increasingly less to do with what the ancients actually believed and more with interpretations of interpretations, and in that sense we never really progressed out of the shadow of the ancients.

Sure, the ancient Greeks got huge swaths of empirical things inaccurate. Even seemingly impressive things, like Socrates' alleged drawing out of the principles of geometry from a slave are really just cunning bits of linguistic sleight-of-hand. But, on the other hand, philosophy has never been able to conclusively dismiss or get away from certain other points of their philosophy. The model of the world presented in the allegory of the cave/theory of forms is still a useful way to introduce the concepts of ontology and epistemology, and while perhaps they may be unscientific because they are untestable, they are also by extension unable to be disproven.

tl;dr: Yes ancient Greeks were wrong about a lot of things, but they were also eternally right about a lot of stuff, and I dare you to categorically disprove the theory of forms (you can't, it's impossible.)

Yes, you shouldn't get hung up on something or treat it as the end of philosophy when you can't disprove it, there are certainly more things to think about ontology and epistemology beyond the theory of forms, but you can't get rid of it either -- it remains a feature of philosophy to the present, whereas many ancient ideas are now definitively useless.
Fuck Diffingridge - Tue, 14 Nov 2017 20:19:59 EST ID:oX3f4KlI No.208535 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>Plato took the math stuff even further and believed that since reality was mathematically defined, and aesthetically pleasing mathematics lead to an absolute truth observation was meaningless and all truths could be arrived at through mathematical calculations.

Modern mathematicians do the same thing more or less. They call it soft platonism, all the numbers without any of the fiddly interpretations of Good and the One. The one difference between Plato and they is Gödel.

who even am I by Barnaby Cashkure - Tue, 18 Jul 2017 22:28:27 EST ID:Q9kaYENz No.208281 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1500431307328.jpg -(154217B / 150.60KB, 767x581) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 154217
I had an interaction with my daughter just now and it spiraled into some sort of existential terror

My son and daughter were in their room supposed to be going to sleep, but I heard her come out of her room and was just coming out to give me a hug.

I didn't react negatively to this - I don't want to say because I'm a nice person - but just because I am the way that I am. You might wonder, why would anyone react negatively to something like that? I don't know. But there are people in the world that would have.

They would have screamed at her for coming out of her room when she's supposed to be in bed, and she would have gone back to bed heartbroken when all she wanted was a hug. And thus the relationship between her and her parent would have been damaged (even further than it probably already would have been).

And when thinking this through, I thought "Well, I sure am glad that I'm not that way." But isn't that strange? I didn't get to decide or choose to be the way that I am. Or at the very least, I didn't choose to be the type of person that chooses to be the way that I am. I just randomly rolled these "stats".

It's horrifying to imagine everything that I could have been.
14 posts and 5 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Shitting Serrymug - Sun, 17 Sep 2017 21:11:14 EST ID:astY1ea6 No.208420 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Kreia is the most well-written character in the expanded star wars universe.
Samuel Buzzbanks - Thu, 21 Sep 2017 21:12:42 EST ID:dTd47cE1 No.208427 Ignore Report Quick Reply

The issue is that it's not free vs determinism, so while there HAVE been findings in quantum physics that suggest some issues with physical causal determinism (check out bell's theorems), these findings do not, in themselves, solve any of the serious philosophical issues facing free will. As anon mentioned earlier in this thread, check out Beyond Good and Evil by Nietzsche for a good explanation of what the most problematic aspects of libertarian free will are.

To elaborate briefly on why a point against determinism is not a point for free will, consider that what physicists have discovered that is so threatening to determinism is the idea of true randomness in quantum phenomena. Not just unpredictable but fundamentally non deterministic events. So that is an issue for the view that the universe is a perfectly consistent wind up clock, yes, but in what way does randomness provide an explanation for free will? A random event cannot be caused by a willing agent, anymore than it can be caused by anything at all. If it was caused, then it wasn't really random was it? And vice versa, if an event is truly random, how could it be said to be the effect of a sovereign agent?
Molly Worthingstone - Fri, 22 Sep 2017 05:17:26 EST ID:qFV6v+im No.208433 Ignore Report Quick Reply

How would you even be able to distinguish between random and unpredictable?
Matilda Dirryhall - Sun, 24 Sep 2017 03:59:49 EST ID:HNJfvXnY No.208437 Ignore Report Quick Reply

The distinction I think is between a lack of knowledge concerning the mechanics of a physical-causal system and the impossibility of their being a complete physical-causal model of certain systems. I'm not an expert on this though, that's why I say to investigate bell's theorems. The words of the physicist can aid the philosopher in mentally organizing his ontology.
Barnaby Cungerbudge - Fri, 29 Sep 2017 01:35:49 EST ID:XypP1lD0 No.208445 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Oh well it looks like I'm a hard determinist then lol. I don't think I was making a case for free will from an "objective" perspective. But nonetheless I think that thus objective free will is distinct from a subjective one precisely because of our finite nature. That is, we can know objectively or logically that our free will is an illusion but we can never subjectively know that. Does that make sense at all?

Political Science by Phineas Nicklebanks - Wed, 23 Aug 2017 13:37:19 EST ID:vmu9ElA5 No.208397 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1503509839765.jpg -(62058B / 60.60KB, 640x631) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 62058
Any Political Science majors?
Why is there so much theory in the course? Does it have any relevance in real life, or is it just academics being academics?
Edwin Nandernen - Wed, 23 Aug 2017 20:20:53 EST ID:UIYk/9cB No.208398 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Not a polisci major, but a philosophy major acquainted with political philosophical literature like The Republic, Marx, Rousseau, etc.

There is a lot of theory because we don't really know how to live or secure a good life (whether this is on an individual or social basis), which is the presumed goal of political thought.

Sure, political academic can get pretty abstract and esoteric and you might think that it's just academics circlejerking, but the hope is that the production of knowledge would entail a possibility of greater human freedom.
Phineas Clayfuck - Thu, 24 Aug 2017 06:06:02 EST ID:Zz8TWrGk No.208399 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Political philosophy isn't really my area. I'm doing comparative analysis and research on international relations. I just think that the theory makes the studies very restricted as you always have to confirm or discard a theory instead of just looking at the available data.
Dr. M !gWLn19/oKs - Fri, 01 Sep 2017 21:54:41 EST ID:mXz0pukj No.208414 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Yes, my undergrad was PoliSci.

You need the theory to genuinely understand political concepts.

No disrespect, but clearly you're the quantitative type. That's great and all, but what knowledge base will you draw on that's not a machine?

Understanding the theories and concepts about why things are structured and occur the way they do help with intuitive thought process and making estimated guesses.

The vast knowledge accumulated from, say, Poli Sci (we take IR as well)+History minor+ Religious studies minor is amazing. You really understand how politics works from a ridiculous amount of perspectives and vantage points.

But I'm a bias academic so. The way I see it is, if you took my approach + maintained the quantitative, you're somebody who actually understands them, yet is able to transform that into quantitative data and legitimize Political Science as a "science".
Edwin Gacklewell - Tue, 05 Sep 2017 21:19:32 EST ID:cmOR3FR3 No.208417 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I knew two guys with polisci degrees. One got a really good D.C. Job with the republicans then his mental illness made him just check out and his parents basically pay for him to be a homebody.

The other guy worked a low level job at google until some think tank hired him.

So the "usefulness" of the degree,like many others, is determined by how well you network.
Phineas Winkindale - Sun, 24 Sep 2017 02:21:57 EST ID:XypP1lD0 No.208436 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Ehh I am inclined to disagree with that. I'm not sure what you mean by studies, but I'm taking it to mean political studies? Theory as done in modern academic settings does move. pretty slowly due to what you mentioned, but I'm not sure how it would restrict anything.

Like a lot of ideas established in the US Constitution owe a lot to the works of John Locke. I don't think it would be restrictive to read his theories. For a more modern and influential political scientist, John Rawls' A Theory of Justice was inspired by Hume's skepticism and Kant's deonotlogical ethics.

As far as data goes, I'm finding it hard to understand why you think that an interpretation of data is distinct from theory. Isn't theory just another way of saying interpretation?

The Existence of Whiteness and White People by Frederick Blackson - Sat, 19 Aug 2017 01:46:29 EST ID:UIYk/9cB No.208391 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1503121589960.png -(210781B / 205.84KB, 354x409) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 210781
It should be obvious here that this is relevant to the events that occurred in Charlottesville, VA. I'm also assuming that the majority of people here consider themselves white, so it's also relevant in that regard. Also, it might be obvious that I'm not writing from the perspective of a white person. But I think it's worth asking anyway.

My questions are thus: in what way(s) do white people exist? And why does an ethnonationalist project (like the Nazi's, KKK, perhaps the alt-right) depend on a white identity?

Is white a race? An ethnicity? A skin tone? A set of cultural acts?

It seems to me that white people don't really exist for three reasons. One, you can easily substitute a "white" identity with an ethnic one. That is, you can identify yourself as Irish, Scandinavian, German, etc. I think that here, to identify yourself as white is a category mistake.

Second reason is a pragmatic one. Why should we insist on a white identity when so many other identities are better? Why can't you identify as a Starcraft 2 player, a metalhead, a juggalo, a frequent masturbator, etc.? I imagine that telling people that you're white has no reflection as to what you actually do or are. There's no need to hold on to a white identity when there are plenty that more accurately describe your being or group (and ethnicity is included here). Whiteness, in other words, is just an empty signifier.

The third reason is political and relates to the point about whiteness being an empty signifier. I think that it's because whiteness is an empty signifier that groups like the Nazis or the KKK are able to utilize and capitalize on it. Because it is an empty signifier, you can use it to mean whatever you want to mean. You can use the concept of "whiteness" against certain minorities (like the Jews in the case of Nazi Germany, like Mexicans in contemporary US).

This is why, I think, the left and the liberals failed horribly in the last election. The emphasis on the tolerance of minority groups and the fact that there is white privilege and therefore white people need to atone for their sin of being white has produced a political climate where people who identify as white become more radical and more extremist.

Hence it's no wonder that there was the rise of the alt-right and Donald Trump who were able to appeal to those who identified as white, since it was liberals are quick to demand that white people repent for their whiteness. Whiteness here is a trap that you can't get out of, because there's literally nothing you can do about being white except be guilty about it. And those who don't want to feel guilty about it are going to find ways to redeem that identity, such as the case in the alt-right. Now I'm not saying that a project toward greater equality should be abandoned, but I think that in order to get out of the liberal guilt trap of being white, it would be necessary to abandon a white identity.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
8 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Jack Semmerway - Sat, 02 Sep 2017 22:26:38 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.208415 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Actually, white people are just pale brown. Sit in the sun long enough and any white person will turn brown eventually.

Even Kirt.
Shitting Pindlehood - Mon, 04 Sep 2017 13:07:53 EST ID:PZgmROe3 No.208416 Ignore Report Quick Reply

That's just the sun being a sjw stallion.
Reuben Lightman - Mon, 18 Sep 2017 17:46:34 EST ID:+oDzYIVl No.208421 Ignore Report Quick Reply
this is an issue that has been plaguing me lately.

Spent about two weeks in a psychiatric hospital. The second day there was a massive rift over racism that had been going on since before i was there and a big fight. The whole thing eventually led to me publicly crying for the rest of the day.

Was made even more ironic when i overheard slashed guess the white guy who shared my first name as a spanish speaker and it turns out he did speak spanish. I sort of assumed the casual informality he may have employed using the n word from his spanish expertise and internet ethos leading to an open conflict that basically led to a two week moment to moment suspense of racism, after i had already been struggling with it since 2016 when another friend tried to call a black friend the n word in a role play excercise for a movie we were filming in character and then got slapped in character.

So aside from affecting the safe explorative space of the creative rainbow it's entered into my mental health recovery as well.

We don't get race in america if were calling something the dreamer act that advocates deporting parents of kids who grew up in america.

White people never get how perception is actually there and act like politics and the world we see in the news and on screen is a million miles away and we can't apply ourselves or have it apply to us.
Martin Chicklebodging - Wed, 20 Sep 2017 18:53:01 EST ID:OXdy4bB0 No.208423 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I' m trying to understand your post, but it's so incoherent. What does "slashed guess" mean?

> We don't get race in america if were calling something the dreamer act that advocates deporting parents of kids who grew up in america.

The DREAMer Act isn't advocating deporting children of illegals; it was an act Obama instated to prevent that very occurrence. Pay better attention to politics if you're going to post about it.

> White people never get how perception is actually there and act like politics and the world we see in the news and on screen is a million miles away and we can't apply ourselves or have it apply to us.

I'm glad you speak for ALL white people...
Doris Debblebock - Thu, 21 Sep 2017 17:06:16 EST ID:+oDzYIVl No.208426 Ignore Report Quick Reply
it's discussing deporting the parents as of last week. Which is why i'm dealing with it this week.

It's quite possible that i can refer to any thing with people and be excluded from discussion even if i am white.

This is what i would refer to as the problem of losing perception.

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